Is the 4 Gig process address limit a massive problem in FCP7? I don't think that this response is based primarily on an imminent problem that pro users will suffer, so much as an emotional sense of betrayal by Apple.
Video and photography pros have a visceral disdain for the prosumer market that isn't necessarily shared by pros in other industries.
Don't be a fag - how about faster processing - you know the 4gb limit is not the only thing.
This, from the Macworld review, is all you need to know... and why at some point in the future Avid and Adobe will have to rewrite their software, or get left in the dust by Apple again.
Quote:
Performance
Without exception, FCP X is the fastest NLE I have edited on without the assistance of dedicated hardware. That performance gain comes from the program?s native 64-bit toolset and the operating system?s Grand Central Dispatch, which harnesses power from the GPU processing as well as the multicore CPU.
This 64-bit architecture lets FCP X access every byte of RAM, execute true multi-processing across all CPU cores, and unlock GPU-based graphics processing. Because FCP X processing is scalable, it?s always using the maximum power available to your computer, whether it be a MacBook Pro or a Mac Pro tower. Final Cut Pro X finally utilizes every CPU and GPU cycle to accelerate background processes.
I can't and wont comment on the state of the art at Avid, but they do seem to be a bit more expensive, and YES... do cater to the traditional tape crowd, as well as a broadcast workflow.
So what's the belly-aching about? Get out your checkbooks and "upgrade" to an Avid station.
Moving to Adobe Premier Pro... well I have some experience with Adobe products... a lot actually.
1) Adobe can't even program a simple thing like a Flash plug-in that doesn't suck... for the last 4 years!
2) Photoshop has 64-bit bolted on, as well as other niceties, in that portions of it's interface are built with Flash and AIR. You read it right, not full native frameworks.
3) The CS series STILL does not have a unified interface, and many tools, while they make look the same across programs, actually function differently. I can't verify that statement within their video apps, but print production and web is a holy mess!
4) Eventually, all of the legacy code created by Macromedia, and then "maintained" by Adobe, has to go and be stripped out. That means a rewrite, if you're going to do it right. Does Adobe have the balls to do it? When? And when/if they do, will it be bug free? I doubt it if the release of 64-bit Photoshop was anything to go by. Open-GL took a while to get right (around 18 months really), and they also killed a number of "pro" filters with the first release, like Liquid... which also came back working after about a 5-6 month period.
There is no way around it. Moving into the future with modern hardware capabilities and frameworks, needs a full rewrite apparently. Anything less and your stuck in legacy, which fewer and fewer businesses are willing to pay or upgrade for. Witness the "mey" comments to Office and PS CS5.5.
Face it. It's a dead end.
OBTW: if the "pro editors" want a hint of what's to come sooner than later to their area of expertise within the movie-making biz... you might all want to read up on the studios building mega VFX effects farms in exotic locals such as Singapore, India, and throughout Asia. VFX artists and indy houses have been hosed well before you, and not due to Apple or the software industry.
Y'all might want to hook up some time and trade notes of doom. Sorry 'bout that too. Sincerely.
And why didn't the pros just said, not ready yet, nothing to see here, move along?
I'm worried about the judgment of supposedly professional editors who didn't realize what's in this FAQ on their own. FCP7 is done. You can still use it, and Apple should guarantee support for X years, until the FCPX transition is done.
When Apple threw everything and started from scratch, it's a moment of vulnerability. Avid and Adobe will definitely make a play for the market. This is the risk of such a new piece of software.
There's sometimes a tone to the "professional editors object" tirades that makes me think some of them just don't like what many call "iMovie Pro" in a derisive way because it makes some things too easy, and makes a whole bunch of lumpen think they can be editors too, and that is something no Guild likes.
My perspective on that is, the revolution is going on whether you get to edit a new series about the Kardashians or not. Web streaming video, file video, is the new reality. Broadcast TV, cable, and all the reasons that industry was once a 'license to print money,' are a stale industry.
As far as the lack of full tape support, who cares? This is Apple making a shot across the bow to all of the outfits out there that are stuck in 1999. Most people are shooting tapeless, or will be in the near future. Why should we have to worry about having to go back out to tape because some TV station still likes a Betacam tape? Maybe the stations should upgrade instead of the myriad producers of small content have to keep unreliable mechanical crap around just for them? Tape died four or five years ago, some people just refused to read the obituary.
There are acquisition formats and delivery formats. Tapeless acquisition has nothing to do with delivery. Stations? Forget those Luddites. How about networks, distribution companies, and middlemen? Take a look at the list of deliverables for foreign market distribution, or a series on A&E, Discovery, History Channel, etc. There's a TON of production for cable that isn't delivered by FTP or shipping a hard drive, and it's being handled all over the country.
... I admit that I have yet to use Final Cut Pro X -- and I'm kind of underwhelmed by what it is doing now.
It's clear this is not a finished product, but Apple probably decided they had to "ship it and fix it' because waiting another 6 months would be worse for keeping market share than a rough transition. Though that's debatable.
I figure that Lion, is going to change a lot for the company, and parts of FCPX could not be made ready, because Lion was not ready to build them on. Things like a file system and streaming come to mind -- Multicam was certainly not forgotten, but I'm guessing when it appears, it will be revolutionary. It's a matter of spending 6 months on a stop-gap rig, versus a year to do it right.
What I think they are moving to, is more and more "in graphic card" manipulations, and multi-core support, and file systems that "don't care where the file is" -- ZPS seems "sort of" the future on file systems, but it could be improved.
The REAL Final Cut Pro X, will probably rely totally on Lion for it's real glory, and on Thunderbolt to shine -- Apple is clearly going to an all-digital, all-streaming, all-realtime platform. It's just a matter of "when." There are at least 3 totally new platforms in the works here.
Final Cut Pro X is going to have some real growing pains -- so for pros, they REALLY are going to have to stay with FCP7 for bread and butter or move to a different platform. In a year, however, I think that FCPX will be "on track for the future" and Adobe and Avid will be playing catchup.
>> The LACK of FCP7 Import is crazy. I'd take merely a "cuts and edit timeline" -- you know, maybe the first two tracks in and out points sans effects and such,... and then saying they have no plans for it? That's kind of a transition killer. What Apple is really saying is; "FCPX is a NEW product with the same name as the old one."
My guess is that they are counting on third Parties like Automatic Duck to do it right because they don't have the time and resources, but Apple can not make future promises for a company. The "we will not be pursuing it" part -- might only make sense in that Automatic Duck isn't going to bother with such a plugin/app if Apple is going to do it anyway in a year. So, figuring that Apple is not crazy, but doesn't want a Lawsuit -- I'd estimate that a third party will have a product for converting files to import -- I mean, if they are going to have an XML format -- they will eventually be able to convert to and from almost ANYTHING.
So, it's probably also that "XML format" issue as well. And, I can imagine that Apple is going to have that XML format, do double-duty with other applications and be web-page accessible.
>> It's a bitter pill for Apple to swallow, but I think they are taking the heat now and laying the groundwork for something really great.... I'm going to get FCPX myself in a few months ... but If I were a big shop, I'd have to ask the question; "Can I wait for a year and a half for the new architecture to fill my needs?"
I'm worried about the judgment of supposedly professional editors who didn't realize what's in this FAQ on their own. FCP7 is done. You can still use it, and Apple should guarantee support for X years, until the FCPX transition is done.
When Apple threw everything and started from scratch, it's a moment of vulnerability. Avid and Adobe will definitely make a play for the market. This is the risk of such a new piece of software.
There's sometimes a tone to the "professional editors object" tirades that makes me think some of them just don't like what many call "iMovie Pro" in a derisive way because it makes some things too easy, and makes a whole bunch of lumpen think they can be editors too, and that is something no Guild likes.
My perspective on that is, the revolution is going on whether you get to edit a new series about the Kardashians or not. Web streaming video, file video, is the new reality. Broadcast TV, cable, and all the reasons that industry was once a 'license to print money,' are a stale industry.
While I agree with MOST of your quote -- I think you are not getting the criticisms either. That "iMovie" interface, is great for SOME workflows -- but there are a lot of shops that are not going to be able to make money with the new FCPX as it stands. SOME, are definitely complaining about "something new that they don't understand." People invest in a way of doing things and don't want to have to re-learn an application they've used for years -- it's the VALUE of staying with an application.
>> And that "show all projects" view is a show-stopper for multi-client shops.
If Apple had more resources, they SHOULD have done an FCP8 and FCPX roll-out. Pull a few of the back-end things like multi-core, 64bit, and improve a few of the long-standing complaints to keep people happy. Of course, the number of hot-shot developers that would require -- I'm not sure of.
But personally, if I were Steve Jobs, I'd do it -- because the Movie industry is strategically important for Apple beyond the few dollars they bring in.
Another issue is that I can see where Apple is probably never going to be able to get FCPX to import FCP7 projects, but that certainly leaves the pros with some issues when FCP7 stops working and they can't open old projects anymore.
They can open FCP7 projects with FCPX, they can open FCPX projects with FCPX.
What's the problem?
No pro switches to a radically new architecture during a production.
SOME, are definitely complaining about "something new that they don't understand."
In the presentation video where they are showing off new features to a bunch of pros in the audience, the pros are all clapping and cheering and acting amazed when they showed a new audio waveform feature which I believe has been around in iMovie for years.
They can open FCP7 projects with FCPX, they can open FCPX projects with FCPX.
What's the problem?
No pro switches to a radically new architecture during a production.
So there's no problem.
I am confused by your post. Care to elaborate on how a FCP7 project is opened in FCPX?
I agree with the middle comment but many, many times a job has to be revisited down the line so opening a project in a newer edition of the software is normal after a back up. The newer version normally takes a while to update then you are set to go. If not it is backed up.
The last part is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I'm worried about the judgment of supposedly professional editors who didn't realize what's in this FAQ on their own. FCP7 is done. You can still use it, and Apple should guarantee support for X years, until the FCPX transition is done.
When Apple threw everything and started from scratch, it's a moment of vulnerability. Avid and Adobe will definitely make a play for the market. This is the risk of such a new piece of software.
There's sometimes a tone to the "professional editors object" tirades that makes me think some of them just don't like what many call "iMovie Pro" in a derisive way because it makes some things too easy, and makes a whole bunch of lumpen think they can be editors too, and that is something no Guild likes.
My perspective on that is, the revolution is going on whether you get to edit a new series about the Kardashians or not. Web streaming video, file video, is the new reality. Broadcast TV, cable, and all the reasons that industry was once a 'license to print money,' are a stale industry.
Got condescension much?
Just because some pundit (or a hundred) declares "something" is dead doesn't mean it is so. It's agreed everything regarding visual content delivery is changing. WE ALL KNOW THIS. However, change is rarely swift and sweeping. WEb streaming, file based workflows are the new reality and WE ALL KNOW THIS. Most pros are working in these new realities right now - along with the legacy stuff. And yes your comment about some high and mighty editors not liking the idea of the "lumpen" calling themselves editors is accurate, but it is several years too late. This has been happening for almost 20 years. FCP X is merely the latest in a long list new, different, empowering and affordable edit tools. You still have to know how to tell a story to be any good. Some Jake in his parents basement cutting clips in his underwear might be affordable, but it is unlikely he is any good.
This, from the Macworld review, is all you need to know... and why at some point in the future Avid and Adobe will have to rewrite their software, or get left in the dust by Apple again.
I can't and wont comment on the state of the art at Avid, but they do seem to be a bit more expensive, and YES... do cater to the traditional tape crowd, as well as a broadcast workflow.
So what's the belly-aching about? Get out your checkbooks and "upgrade" to an Avid station.
....
I think you are "GETTING IT" as far as where FCPX is going.
I figure that Apple is laying the groundwork for something like a desktop "FLAME", or "NITRO" or other real-time video creation station.
If you look at Motion -- I think you see where their paradigm is.
>> The "STRANGE" missing piece is the Preview on monitor support -- but that, along with the XML file system to me is pretty telling. There is NO EFFORT to waste time on anything that is not forward-looking in this product. Which is a pretty bold move.
So, if "I WERE CREATING A PERFECT EDITING SUITE" -- Id get rid of the old "cut and paste time-line" spreadsheet methodology. What you really WANT, is to have one big interface for your canvas and hot-keyed monitors for available video. INSTEAD of spending all your time cutting out the best performance from 20 takes, and then archiving reals based on where they should go in the movie -- you "audition" 20 takes at one time -- the BIG HINT, there is how "audio tracks" are syncing a clip. I suspect, that in the not to distant future, you can automatically scan for FACES, VOICES, and the "FX" like a CLAP BOARD and some key phrase like; "Scene 3, take 2" and THAT will create your automatic groupings for your project.
The TIMELINE is OLD -- and not really HOW we want to edit a video. You are either wanting to Manipulate or SEE related content to the scene you are manipulating, or you are jumping to some other point to manipulate and see. When you scroll across the time-line, that's really just a spreadsheet for the content you place on it. Sometimes it has thumbnails or names of the content -- sometimes, you might even label a "phrase" someone spoke. But I could imagine that you could "see through time" on multiple tracks, and "see the text" of what is said, like you were navigating "Time Machine" backups in reverse -- with some sort of onion-skinning.
>> I don't think that this latest FCPX will fully realize it's editing and navigating interface yet (with of course a HUD that you can customize) -- I just think that this is a stepping stone on the way to the future interface.
I figured, that the "face detection" and "text to speech" technologies would eventually catch up. It would be SO MUCH BETTER to have a script and have that match up to the timecode and then track to various points in various videos.
The XML file format, to me, hints at MORE INTEGRATION, so that the power of this, might be that someone in a web browser, could be helping clean up dailies or tag things on the project -- only the main editor, needs to deal with the hi-rez data. And it all magically syncs in the cloud. It seems like an oversight that Apple doesn't have the "save these files to this drive" as the default for all projects anymore -- but I've always wanted a "save here for this project" option myself.
With ThunderBolt -- the streaming of Previews and Cache files is going to get a lot quicker, with no need for the CPU to be involved in disk to disk transfers anymore. So, FCPX is moving towards "content based" file system, rather than a Drive/Folder based file system. But BEFORE that can work, it means that Terabytes are cheap, transfers are fast, and that you have something like "iCloud" to make sure that everything stays in sync.
>> MORE than the "real time" special effects, I think that MOST pro video shops are going to start having a "paradigm shift" to over-use a term, when the "content based" file system becomes ubiquitous.
Imagine all that FX, sound clips, clip content that you DON'T use right now, because it takes to much time to find and incorporate it, just "presented itself when and where it made sense." And imagine that you don't have to play ANYTHING from Twelve Hours of video, to have all the clips track the outline, or to find "speaker Bob Smith in Room Twelve on Day 4 of Convention 2009" ... you just have a file on Bob Smith, and every video clip he did EVER, is sortable, and you can view a quick preview or download a hi-rez version for finishing.
>> The CHANGES to workflow/production are going to be staggering once those types of capabilities become ubiquitous -- kind of like when we were first able to easily search for things on our hard drive. But it takes a LOT of infrastructure to make this work;
Face Recognition
Speech to Text that works
Voice recognition that identifies the speaker.
XML and a text-based file system to allow these different features to communicate.
Some sort of "cloud" infrastructure that allows editing, reviewing and grabbing files to be transparent.
True multi-threaded multi-core support that allows for networked computers to "pitch in" without getting in the way of dedicated work (Grand Central),
All image and sound manipulations to be processed in optimized engines that can take advantage of graphic cards or OTHER computing power (Open GL, Open GL, etc.)
>> My advice; if you don't have time to "learn" FCPX -- then don't buy it. Don't use it on something critical. But, if you are interested in much faster creative editing and more "content-aware" content control -- it makes sense to jump in.
In the presentation video where they are showing off new features to a bunch of pros in the audience, the pros are all clapping and cheering and acting amazed when they showed a new audio waveform feature which I believe has been around in iMovie for years.
Why is this a surprise. We've been talking about the Steve Jobs "reality distortion field" for years now
My guess, however, is that the speed and the WAY the data is displayed to the editor is what gathered excitement -- but I haven't looked at it that closely yet.
I think that with a "best effort" attempt Apple could provide a separate migration tool that took an FCP7 project and created a corresponding FCPX project:
You would think they could do it if they wanted to instead of basically saying it is impossible. After all, this is the company that brought us Rosetta and universal binaries to ease the transitions from two of their other major rewrites. And it couldn't be any more difficult than porting Safari, Quicktime and iTunes to Windows.
Hell, I'd settle for a FCP 7 plugin that exported to FCP X.
you would think they could do it if they wanted to instead of basically saying it is impossible. After all, this is the company that brought us rosetta and universal binaries to ease the transitions from two of their other major rewrites.
I think you are "GETTING IT" as far as where FCPX is going.
I figure that Apple is laying the groundwork for something like a desktop "FLAME", or "NITRO" or other real-time video creation station.
If you look at Motion -- I think you see where their paradigm is.
>> The "STRANGE" missing piece is the Preview on monitor support -- but that, along with the XML file system to me is pretty telling. There is NO EFFORT to waste time on anything that is not forward-looking in this product. Which is a pretty bold move.
So, if "I WERE CREATING A PERFECT EDITING SUITE" -- Id get rid of the old "cut and paste time-line" spreadsheet methodology. What you really WANT, is to have one big interface for your canvas and hot-keyed monitors for available video. INSTEAD of spending all your time cutting out the best performance from 20 takes, and then archiving reals based on where they should go in the movie -- you "audition" 20 takes at one time -- the BIG HINT, there is how "audio tracks" are syncing a clip. I suspect, that in the not to distant future, you can automatically scan for FACES, VOICES, and the "FX" like a CLAP BOARD and some key phrase like; "Scene 3, take 2" and THAT will create your automatic groupings for your project.
The TIMELINE is OLD -- and not really HOW we want to edit a video. You are either wanting to Manipulate or SEE related content to the scene you are manipulating, or you are jumping to some other point to manipulate and see. When you scroll across the time-line, that's really just a spreadsheet for the content you place on it. Sometimes it has thumbnails or names of the content -- sometimes, you might even label a "phrase" someone spoke. But I could imagine that you could "see through time" on multiple tracks, and "see the text" of what is said, like you were navigating "Time Machine" backups in reverse -- with some sort of onion-skinning.
>> I don't think that this latest FCPX will fully realize it's editing and navigating interface yet (with of course a HUD that you can customize) -- I just think that this is a stepping stone on the way to the future interface.
I figured, that the "face detection" and "text to speech" technologies would eventually catch up. It would be SO MUCH BETTER to have a script and have that match up to the timecode and then track to various points in various videos.
The XML file format, to me, hints at MORE INTEGRATION, so that the power of this, might be that someone in a web browser, could be helping clean up dailies or tag things on the project -- only the main editor, needs to deal with the hi-rez data. And it all magically syncs in the cloud. It seems like an oversight that Apple doesn't have the "save these files to this drive" as the default for all projects anymore -- but I've always wanted a "save here for this project" option myself.
With ThunderBolt -- the streaming of Previews and Cache files is going to get a lot quicker, with no need for the CPU to be involved in disk to disk transfers anymore. So, FCPX is moving towards "content based" file system, rather than a Drive/Folder based file system. But BEFORE that can work, it means that Terabytes are cheap, transfers are fast, and that you have something like "iCloud" to make sure that everything stays in sync.
>> MORE than the "real time" special effects, I think that MOST pro video shops are going to start having a "paradigm shift" to over-use a term, when the "content based" file system becomes ubiquitous.
Imagine all that FX, sound clips, clip content that you DON'T use right now, because it takes to much time to find and incorporate it, just "presented itself when and where it made sense." And imagine that you don't have to play ANYTHING from Twelve Hours of video, to have all the clips track the outline, or to find "speaker Bob Smith in Room Twelve on Day 4 of Convention 2009" ... you just have a file on Bob Smith, and every video clip he did EVER, is sortable, and you can view a quick preview or download a hi-rez version for finishing.
>> The CHANGES to workflow/production are going to be staggering once those types of capabilities become ubiquitous -- kind of like when we were first able to easily search for things on our hard drive. But it takes a LOT of infrastructure to make this work;
Face Recognition
Speech to Text that works
Voice recognition that identifies the speaker.
XML and a text-based file system to allow these different features to communicate.
Some sort of "cloud" infrastructure that allows editing, reviewing and grabbing files to be transparent.
True multi-threaded multi-core support that allows for networked computers to "pitch in" without getting in the way of dedicated work (Grand Central),
All image and sound manipulations to be processed in optimized engines that can take advantage of graphic cards or OTHER computing power (Open GL, Open GL, etc.)
>> My advice; if you don't have time to "learn" FCPX -- then don't buy it. Don't use it on something critical. But, if you are interested in much faster creative editing and more "content-aware" content control -- it makes sense to jump in.
"You can also import your media files from previous versions into Final Cut Pro X."
As long as it's not on a NAS of course. It's nice to know that it imports media though, that's the least you'd expect from a video editing package so I guess my mxf files that FCP 7 imported will load in just fine:
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.
Phew, no chance of partial data loss when we have complete data loss. To think I might have had the hassle of reapplying a colour correction or two. All I have to do now is rebuild the entire timeline.
Quote:
Final Cut Pro X offers some basic support with automatic clip synchronization, which allows you to sync multiple video and audio clips using audio waveforms, creating a Compound Clip that can be used for simple multicam workflows.
A big part of this is the actual editing part, not the clip sync.
Quote:
Yes. You can hide Events in Final Cut Pro X by moving them out of the Final Cut Events folder.
No.
How about a 'show only selected events' button or allow events to be tagged with projects and have a dropdown that shows all or individual projects?
Quote:
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.
Yeah, thing about that is, nobody really wants to have to spend $500 for a feature that will be free in a few weeks and the fact Apple helped them out kinda rubs salt in the wounds a bit.
Quote:
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.
As long as it can go back and forth between Pro Tools without losing any data or connections. I anticipate lots of fun with this.
Quote:
Can I customize my export settings?
Yes. Compressor 4, available from the Mac App Store for $49.99
The frequently asked question is 'can I customise my export settings from Final Cut Pro X' to which the answer is no. I can do it in $30 Quicktime Pro but not $300 Final Cut Pro. Compressor is a batch compressor, there's no reason to run every single export through it to be able to use format presets that any app has access to via Quicktime (unless they break this in Lion too of course).
Quote:
Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, and Compressor 4 Commercial and Education Volume Licensing will be available soon via the Apple Online Store for quantities of 20 or more.
So people who want 15 seats just have to do what? Install using 15 individual accounts?
It's nice that they put up the FAQ but the answers need some more work.
Unlike "fearless" (what an oxymoron) I'm not afraid of the fact my job can be done by more and more people. You should keep your job because you know how to make a good video, not due to having made a huge investment in technology and "training" to keep the masses out.
Tape acquisition and tape delivery are utterly separate questions, and the networks have not yet joined the dots. They won't be swayed just because Apple announces "the way of the future".
They will eventually go there, and we won't be buying a new HDCAM SR deck anytime soon. But we've been saying that for five years and they still want tape.
It's all well and good to go shooting with your 5D or EX and imagine your show will never see tape. It will, if it's going anywhere other than a DVD or Blu-ray (hang on, aren't they dead too?) or the web. So what exactly are you paid to make? Vimeo vids? Skating on YouTube? There's money in that that beats network television deals? Show me!
Comments
Is the 4 Gig process address limit a massive problem in FCP7? I don't think that this response is based primarily on an imminent problem that pro users will suffer, so much as an emotional sense of betrayal by Apple.
Video and photography pros have a visceral disdain for the prosumer market that isn't necessarily shared by pros in other industries.
Don't be a fag - how about faster processing - you know the 4gb limit is not the only thing.
Performance
Without exception, FCP X is the fastest NLE I have edited on without the assistance of dedicated hardware. That performance gain comes from the program?s native 64-bit toolset and the operating system?s Grand Central Dispatch, which harnesses power from the GPU processing as well as the multicore CPU.
This 64-bit architecture lets FCP X access every byte of RAM, execute true multi-processing across all CPU cores, and unlock GPU-based graphics processing. Because FCP X processing is scalable, it?s always using the maximum power available to your computer, whether it be a MacBook Pro or a Mac Pro tower. Final Cut Pro X finally utilizes every CPU and GPU cycle to accelerate background processes.
I can't and wont comment on the state of the art at Avid, but they do seem to be a bit more expensive, and YES... do cater to the traditional tape crowd, as well as a broadcast workflow.
So what's the belly-aching about? Get out your checkbooks and "upgrade" to an Avid station.
Moving to Adobe Premier Pro... well I have some experience with Adobe products... a lot actually.
1) Adobe can't even program a simple thing like a Flash plug-in that doesn't suck... for the last 4 years!
2) Photoshop has 64-bit bolted on, as well as other niceties, in that portions of it's interface are built with Flash and AIR. You read it right, not full native frameworks.
3) The CS series STILL does not have a unified interface, and many tools, while they make look the same across programs, actually function differently. I can't verify that statement within their video apps, but print production and web is a holy mess!
4) Eventually, all of the legacy code created by Macromedia, and then "maintained" by Adobe, has to go and be stripped out. That means a rewrite, if you're going to do it right. Does Adobe have the balls to do it? When? And when/if they do, will it be bug free? I doubt it if the release of 64-bit Photoshop was anything to go by. Open-GL took a while to get right (around 18 months really), and they also killed a number of "pro" filters with the first release, like Liquid... which also came back working after about a 5-6 month period.
There is no way around it. Moving into the future with modern hardware capabilities and frameworks, needs a full rewrite apparently. Anything less and your stuck in legacy, which fewer and fewer businesses are willing to pay or upgrade for. Witness the "mey" comments to Office and PS CS5.5.
Face it. It's a dead end.
OBTW: if the "pro editors" want a hint of what's to come sooner than later to their area of expertise within the movie-making biz... you might all want to read up on the studios building mega VFX effects farms in exotic locals such as Singapore, India, and throughout Asia. VFX artists and indy houses have been hosed well before you, and not due to Apple or the software industry.
Y'all might want to hook up some time and trade notes of doom. Sorry 'bout that too. Sincerely.
I call BS on Apple not being able to import FCP7 into FCPX as well as Adobe (Premiere)!
Now, I'm off to bathe the "body beautiful"... be back in 30!
Xserve was a solution looking for a problem. It never found one.
Rack mountable mac computers - I need that and without it I have a problem
And why didn't the pros just said, not ready yet, nothing to see here, move along?
I'm worried about the judgment of supposedly professional editors who didn't realize what's in this FAQ on their own. FCP7 is done. You can still use it, and Apple should guarantee support for X years, until the FCPX transition is done.
When Apple threw everything and started from scratch, it's a moment of vulnerability. Avid and Adobe will definitely make a play for the market. This is the risk of such a new piece of software.
There's sometimes a tone to the "professional editors object" tirades that makes me think some of them just don't like what many call "iMovie Pro" in a derisive way because it makes some things too easy, and makes a whole bunch of lumpen think they can be editors too, and that is something no Guild likes.
My perspective on that is, the revolution is going on whether you get to edit a new series about the Kardashians or not. Web streaming video, file video, is the new reality. Broadcast TV, cable, and all the reasons that industry was once a 'license to print money,' are a stale industry.
As far as the lack of full tape support, who cares? This is Apple making a shot across the bow to all of the outfits out there that are stuck in 1999. Most people are shooting tapeless, or will be in the near future. Why should we have to worry about having to go back out to tape because some TV station still likes a Betacam tape? Maybe the stations should upgrade instead of the myriad producers of small content have to keep unreliable mechanical crap around just for them? Tape died four or five years ago, some people just refused to read the obituary.
There are acquisition formats and delivery formats. Tapeless acquisition has nothing to do with delivery. Stations? Forget those Luddites. How about networks, distribution companies, and middlemen? Take a look at the list of deliverables for foreign market distribution, or a series on A&E, Discovery, History Channel, etc. There's a TON of production for cable that isn't delivered by FTP or shipping a hard drive, and it's being handled all over the country.
gc
It's clear this is not a finished product, but Apple probably decided they had to "ship it and fix it' because waiting another 6 months would be worse for keeping market share than a rough transition. Though that's debatable.
I figure that Lion, is going to change a lot for the company, and parts of FCPX could not be made ready, because Lion was not ready to build them on. Things like a file system and streaming come to mind -- Multicam was certainly not forgotten, but I'm guessing when it appears, it will be revolutionary. It's a matter of spending 6 months on a stop-gap rig, versus a year to do it right.
What I think they are moving to, is more and more "in graphic card" manipulations, and multi-core support, and file systems that "don't care where the file is" -- ZPS seems "sort of" the future on file systems, but it could be improved.
The REAL Final Cut Pro X, will probably rely totally on Lion for it's real glory, and on Thunderbolt to shine -- Apple is clearly going to an all-digital, all-streaming, all-realtime platform. It's just a matter of "when." There are at least 3 totally new platforms in the works here.
Final Cut Pro X is going to have some real growing pains -- so for pros, they REALLY are going to have to stay with FCP7 for bread and butter or move to a different platform. In a year, however, I think that FCPX will be "on track for the future" and Adobe and Avid will be playing catchup.
>> The LACK of FCP7 Import is crazy. I'd take merely a "cuts and edit timeline" -- you know, maybe the first two tracks in and out points sans effects and such,... and then saying they have no plans for it? That's kind of a transition killer. What Apple is really saying is; "FCPX is a NEW product with the same name as the old one."
My guess is that they are counting on third Parties like Automatic Duck to do it right because they don't have the time and resources, but Apple can not make future promises for a company. The "we will not be pursuing it" part -- might only make sense in that Automatic Duck isn't going to bother with such a plugin/app if Apple is going to do it anyway in a year. So, figuring that Apple is not crazy, but doesn't want a Lawsuit -- I'd estimate that a third party will have a product for converting files to import -- I mean, if they are going to have an XML format -- they will eventually be able to convert to and from almost ANYTHING.
So, it's probably also that "XML format" issue as well. And, I can imagine that Apple is going to have that XML format, do double-duty with other applications and be web-page accessible.
>> It's a bitter pill for Apple to swallow, but I think they are taking the heat now and laying the groundwork for something really great.... I'm going to get FCPX myself in a few months ... but If I were a big shop, I'd have to ask the question; "Can I wait for a year and a half for the new architecture to fill my needs?"
I'm worried about the judgment of supposedly professional editors who didn't realize what's in this FAQ on their own. FCP7 is done. You can still use it, and Apple should guarantee support for X years, until the FCPX transition is done.
When Apple threw everything and started from scratch, it's a moment of vulnerability. Avid and Adobe will definitely make a play for the market. This is the risk of such a new piece of software.
There's sometimes a tone to the "professional editors object" tirades that makes me think some of them just don't like what many call "iMovie Pro" in a derisive way because it makes some things too easy, and makes a whole bunch of lumpen think they can be editors too, and that is something no Guild likes.
My perspective on that is, the revolution is going on whether you get to edit a new series about the Kardashians or not. Web streaming video, file video, is the new reality. Broadcast TV, cable, and all the reasons that industry was once a 'license to print money,' are a stale industry.
While I agree with MOST of your quote -- I think you are not getting the criticisms either. That "iMovie" interface, is great for SOME workflows -- but there are a lot of shops that are not going to be able to make money with the new FCPX as it stands. SOME, are definitely complaining about "something new that they don't understand." People invest in a way of doing things and don't want to have to re-learn an application they've used for years -- it's the VALUE of staying with an application.
>> And that "show all projects" view is a show-stopper for multi-client shops.
If Apple had more resources, they SHOULD have done an FCP8 and FCPX roll-out. Pull a few of the back-end things like multi-core, 64bit, and improve a few of the long-standing complaints to keep people happy. Of course, the number of hot-shot developers that would require -- I'm not sure of.
But personally, if I were Steve Jobs, I'd do it -- because the Movie industry is strategically important for Apple beyond the few dollars they bring in.
Another issue is that I can see where Apple is probably never going to be able to get FCPX to import FCP7 projects, but that certainly leaves the pros with some issues when FCP7 stops working and they can't open old projects anymore.
They can open FCP7 projects with FCPX, they can open FCPX projects with FCPX.
What's the problem?
No pro switches to a radically new architecture during a production.
So there's no problem.
SOME, are definitely complaining about "something new that they don't understand."
In the presentation video where they are showing off new features to a bunch of pros in the audience, the pros are all clapping and cheering and acting amazed when they showed a new audio waveform feature which I believe has been around in iMovie for years.
They can open FCP7 projects with FCPX, they can open FCPX projects with FCPX.
What's the problem?
No pro switches to a radically new architecture during a production.
So there's no problem.
I am confused by your post. Care to elaborate on how a FCP7 project is opened in FCPX?
I agree with the middle comment but many, many times a job has to be revisited down the line so opening a project in a newer edition of the software is normal after a back up. The newer version normally takes a while to update then you are set to go. If not it is backed up.
The last part is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I'm worried about the judgment of supposedly professional editors who didn't realize what's in this FAQ on their own. FCP7 is done. You can still use it, and Apple should guarantee support for X years, until the FCPX transition is done.
When Apple threw everything and started from scratch, it's a moment of vulnerability. Avid and Adobe will definitely make a play for the market. This is the risk of such a new piece of software.
There's sometimes a tone to the "professional editors object" tirades that makes me think some of them just don't like what many call "iMovie Pro" in a derisive way because it makes some things too easy, and makes a whole bunch of lumpen think they can be editors too, and that is something no Guild likes.
My perspective on that is, the revolution is going on whether you get to edit a new series about the Kardashians or not. Web streaming video, file video, is the new reality. Broadcast TV, cable, and all the reasons that industry was once a 'license to print money,' are a stale industry.
Got condescension much?
Just because some pundit (or a hundred) declares "something" is dead doesn't mean it is so. It's agreed everything regarding visual content delivery is changing. WE ALL KNOW THIS. However, change is rarely swift and sweeping. WEb streaming, file based workflows are the new reality and WE ALL KNOW THIS. Most pros are working in these new realities right now - along with the legacy stuff. And yes your comment about some high and mighty editors not liking the idea of the "lumpen" calling themselves editors is accurate, but it is several years too late. This has been happening for almost 20 years. FCP X is merely the latest in a long list new, different, empowering and affordable edit tools. You still have to know how to tell a story to be any good. Some Jake in his parents basement cutting clips in his underwear might be affordable, but it is unlikely he is any good.
This, from the Macworld review, is all you need to know... and why at some point in the future Avid and Adobe will have to rewrite their software, or get left in the dust by Apple again.
I can't and wont comment on the state of the art at Avid, but they do seem to be a bit more expensive, and YES... do cater to the traditional tape crowd, as well as a broadcast workflow.
So what's the belly-aching about? Get out your checkbooks and "upgrade" to an Avid station.
....
I think you are "GETTING IT" as far as where FCPX is going.
I figure that Apple is laying the groundwork for something like a desktop "FLAME", or "NITRO" or other real-time video creation station.
If you look at Motion -- I think you see where their paradigm is.
>> The "STRANGE" missing piece is the Preview on monitor support -- but that, along with the XML file system to me is pretty telling. There is NO EFFORT to waste time on anything that is not forward-looking in this product. Which is a pretty bold move.
So, if "I WERE CREATING A PERFECT EDITING SUITE" -- Id get rid of the old "cut and paste time-line" spreadsheet methodology. What you really WANT, is to have one big interface for your canvas and hot-keyed monitors for available video. INSTEAD of spending all your time cutting out the best performance from 20 takes, and then archiving reals based on where they should go in the movie -- you "audition" 20 takes at one time -- the BIG HINT, there is how "audio tracks" are syncing a clip. I suspect, that in the not to distant future, you can automatically scan for FACES, VOICES, and the "FX" like a CLAP BOARD and some key phrase like; "Scene 3, take 2" and THAT will create your automatic groupings for your project.
The TIMELINE is OLD -- and not really HOW we want to edit a video. You are either wanting to Manipulate or SEE related content to the scene you are manipulating, or you are jumping to some other point to manipulate and see. When you scroll across the time-line, that's really just a spreadsheet for the content you place on it. Sometimes it has thumbnails or names of the content -- sometimes, you might even label a "phrase" someone spoke. But I could imagine that you could "see through time" on multiple tracks, and "see the text" of what is said, like you were navigating "Time Machine" backups in reverse -- with some sort of onion-skinning.
>> I don't think that this latest FCPX will fully realize it's editing and navigating interface yet (with of course a HUD that you can customize) -- I just think that this is a stepping stone on the way to the future interface.
I figured, that the "face detection" and "text to speech" technologies would eventually catch up. It would be SO MUCH BETTER to have a script and have that match up to the timecode and then track to various points in various videos.
The XML file format, to me, hints at MORE INTEGRATION, so that the power of this, might be that someone in a web browser, could be helping clean up dailies or tag things on the project -- only the main editor, needs to deal with the hi-rez data. And it all magically syncs in the cloud. It seems like an oversight that Apple doesn't have the "save these files to this drive" as the default for all projects anymore -- but I've always wanted a "save here for this project" option myself.
With ThunderBolt -- the streaming of Previews and Cache files is going to get a lot quicker, with no need for the CPU to be involved in disk to disk transfers anymore. So, FCPX is moving towards "content based" file system, rather than a Drive/Folder based file system. But BEFORE that can work, it means that Terabytes are cheap, transfers are fast, and that you have something like "iCloud" to make sure that everything stays in sync.
>> MORE than the "real time" special effects, I think that MOST pro video shops are going to start having a "paradigm shift" to over-use a term, when the "content based" file system becomes ubiquitous.
Imagine all that FX, sound clips, clip content that you DON'T use right now, because it takes to much time to find and incorporate it, just "presented itself when and where it made sense." And imagine that you don't have to play ANYTHING from Twelve Hours of video, to have all the clips track the outline, or to find "speaker Bob Smith in Room Twelve on Day 4 of Convention 2009" ... you just have a file on Bob Smith, and every video clip he did EVER, is sortable, and you can view a quick preview or download a hi-rez version for finishing.
>> The CHANGES to workflow/production are going to be staggering once those types of capabilities become ubiquitous -- kind of like when we were first able to easily search for things on our hard drive. But it takes a LOT of infrastructure to make this work;
Face Recognition
Speech to Text that works
Voice recognition that identifies the speaker.
XML and a text-based file system to allow these different features to communicate.
Some sort of "cloud" infrastructure that allows editing, reviewing and grabbing files to be transparent.
True multi-threaded multi-core support that allows for networked computers to "pitch in" without getting in the way of dedicated work (Grand Central),
All image and sound manipulations to be processed in optimized engines that can take advantage of graphic cards or OTHER computing power (Open GL, Open GL, etc.)
>> My advice; if you don't have time to "learn" FCPX -- then don't buy it. Don't use it on something critical. But, if you are interested in much faster creative editing and more "content-aware" content control -- it makes sense to jump in.
In the presentation video where they are showing off new features to a bunch of pros in the audience, the pros are all clapping and cheering and acting amazed when they showed a new audio waveform feature which I believe has been around in iMovie for years.
Why is this a surprise. We've been talking about the Steve Jobs "reality distortion field" for years now
My guess, however, is that the speed and the WAY the data is displayed to the editor is what gathered excitement -- but I haven't looked at it that closely yet.
I think that with a "best effort" attempt Apple could provide a separate migration tool that took an FCP7 project and created a corresponding FCPX project:
You would think they could do it if they wanted to instead of basically saying it is impossible. After all, this is the company that brought us Rosetta and universal binaries to ease the transitions from two of their other major rewrites. And it couldn't be any more difficult than porting Safari, Quicktime and iTunes to Windows.
Hell, I'd settle for a FCP 7 plugin that exported to FCP X.
you would think they could do it if they wanted to instead of basically saying it is impossible. After all, this is the company that brought us rosetta and universal binaries to ease the transitions from two of their other major rewrites.
r.o.i.
I think you are "GETTING IT" as far as where FCPX is going.
I figure that Apple is laying the groundwork for something like a desktop "FLAME", or "NITRO" or other real-time video creation station.
If you look at Motion -- I think you see where their paradigm is.
>> The "STRANGE" missing piece is the Preview on monitor support -- but that, along with the XML file system to me is pretty telling. There is NO EFFORT to waste time on anything that is not forward-looking in this product. Which is a pretty bold move.
So, if "I WERE CREATING A PERFECT EDITING SUITE" -- Id get rid of the old "cut and paste time-line" spreadsheet methodology. What you really WANT, is to have one big interface for your canvas and hot-keyed monitors for available video. INSTEAD of spending all your time cutting out the best performance from 20 takes, and then archiving reals based on where they should go in the movie -- you "audition" 20 takes at one time -- the BIG HINT, there is how "audio tracks" are syncing a clip. I suspect, that in the not to distant future, you can automatically scan for FACES, VOICES, and the "FX" like a CLAP BOARD and some key phrase like; "Scene 3, take 2" and THAT will create your automatic groupings for your project.
The TIMELINE is OLD -- and not really HOW we want to edit a video. You are either wanting to Manipulate or SEE related content to the scene you are manipulating, or you are jumping to some other point to manipulate and see. When you scroll across the time-line, that's really just a spreadsheet for the content you place on it. Sometimes it has thumbnails or names of the content -- sometimes, you might even label a "phrase" someone spoke. But I could imagine that you could "see through time" on multiple tracks, and "see the text" of what is said, like you were navigating "Time Machine" backups in reverse -- with some sort of onion-skinning.
>> I don't think that this latest FCPX will fully realize it's editing and navigating interface yet (with of course a HUD that you can customize) -- I just think that this is a stepping stone on the way to the future interface.
I figured, that the "face detection" and "text to speech" technologies would eventually catch up. It would be SO MUCH BETTER to have a script and have that match up to the timecode and then track to various points in various videos.
The XML file format, to me, hints at MORE INTEGRATION, so that the power of this, might be that someone in a web browser, could be helping clean up dailies or tag things on the project -- only the main editor, needs to deal with the hi-rez data. And it all magically syncs in the cloud. It seems like an oversight that Apple doesn't have the "save these files to this drive" as the default for all projects anymore -- but I've always wanted a "save here for this project" option myself.
With ThunderBolt -- the streaming of Previews and Cache files is going to get a lot quicker, with no need for the CPU to be involved in disk to disk transfers anymore. So, FCPX is moving towards "content based" file system, rather than a Drive/Folder based file system. But BEFORE that can work, it means that Terabytes are cheap, transfers are fast, and that you have something like "iCloud" to make sure that everything stays in sync.
>> MORE than the "real time" special effects, I think that MOST pro video shops are going to start having a "paradigm shift" to over-use a term, when the "content based" file system becomes ubiquitous.
Imagine all that FX, sound clips, clip content that you DON'T use right now, because it takes to much time to find and incorporate it, just "presented itself when and where it made sense." And imagine that you don't have to play ANYTHING from Twelve Hours of video, to have all the clips track the outline, or to find "speaker Bob Smith in Room Twelve on Day 4 of Convention 2009" ... you just have a file on Bob Smith, and every video clip he did EVER, is sortable, and you can view a quick preview or download a hi-rez version for finishing.
>> The CHANGES to workflow/production are going to be staggering once those types of capabilities become ubiquitous -- kind of like when we were first able to easily search for things on our hard drive. But it takes a LOT of infrastructure to make this work;
Face Recognition
Speech to Text that works
Voice recognition that identifies the speaker.
XML and a text-based file system to allow these different features to communicate.
Some sort of "cloud" infrastructure that allows editing, reviewing and grabbing files to be transparent.
True multi-threaded multi-core support that allows for networked computers to "pitch in" without getting in the way of dedicated work (Grand Central),
All image and sound manipulations to be processed in optimized engines that can take advantage of graphic cards or OTHER computing power (Open GL, Open GL, etc.)
>> My advice; if you don't have time to "learn" FCPX -- then don't buy it. Don't use it on something critical. But, if you are interested in much faster creative editing and more "content-aware" content control -- it makes sense to jump in.
+++ What an amazing post!
"You can also import your media files from previous versions into Final Cut Pro X."
As long as it's not on a NAS of course. It's nice to know that it imports media though, that's the least you'd expect from a video editing package so I guess my mxf files that FCP 7 imported will load in just fine:
https://discussions.apple.com/thread...art=0&tstart=0
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.
Phew, no chance of partial data loss when we have complete data loss. To think I might have had the hassle of reapplying a colour correction or two. All I have to do now is rebuild the entire timeline.
Final Cut Pro X offers some basic support with automatic clip synchronization, which allows you to sync multiple video and audio clips using audio waveforms, creating a Compound Clip that can be used for simple multicam workflows.
A big part of this is the actual editing part, not the clip sync.
Yes. You can hide Events in Final Cut Pro X by moving them out of the Final Cut Events folder.
How about a 'show only selected events' button or allow events to be tagged with projects and have a dropdown that shows all or individual projects?
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.
Yeah, thing about that is, nobody really wants to have to spend $500 for a feature that will be free in a few weeks and the fact Apple helped them out kinda rubs salt in the wounds a bit.
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.
As long as it can go back and forth between Pro Tools without losing any data or connections. I anticipate lots of fun with this.
Can I customize my export settings?
Yes. Compressor 4, available from the Mac App Store for $49.99
The frequently asked question is 'can I customise my export settings from Final Cut Pro X' to which the answer is no. I can do it in $30 Quicktime Pro but not $300 Final Cut Pro. Compressor is a batch compressor, there's no reason to run every single export through it to be able to use format presets that any app has access to via Quicktime (unless they break this in Lion too of course).
Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, and Compressor 4 Commercial and Education Volume Licensing will be available soon via the Apple Online Store for quantities of 20 or more.
So people who want 15 seats just have to do what? Install using 15 individual accounts?
It's nice that they put up the FAQ but the answers need some more work.
Unlike "fearless" (what an oxymoron) I'm not afraid of the fact my job can be done by more and more people. You should keep your job because you know how to make a good video, not due to having made a huge investment in technology and "training" to keep the masses out.
Tape acquisition and tape delivery are utterly separate questions, and the networks have not yet joined the dots. They won't be swayed just because Apple announces "the way of the future".
They will eventually go there, and we won't be buying a new HDCAM SR deck anytime soon. But we've been saying that for five years and they still want tape.
It's all well and good to go shooting with your 5D or EX and imagine your show will never see tape. It will, if it's going anywhere other than a DVD or Blu-ray (hang on, aren't they dead too?) or the web. So what exactly are you paid to make? Vimeo vids? Skating on YouTube? There's money in that that beats network television deals? Show me!
They can open FCP7 projects with FCPX, they can open FCPX projects with FCPX.
What's the problem?
No pro switches to a radically new architecture during a production.
So there's no problem.