No it is not. It is a worthless consumer request. Professional studios dont't switch apps during a project and have no need to open old projects in fcpx at all.
It is a stupid request really, I mean, final cut studio 3 does not suddenly invalidate. It's not an OS upgrade either, replacing an old version. It's just a set of apps you can install on the same machine, for crying out loud! Just not run at the same time.
Anyway technically wise it's not possible to open old projects because it's so different: fcpx uses tags and stores files in a database.
You're completely missing the point.
Every studio I've ever worked in has a need to open old projects all the time. In fact, just yesterday I worked on a 2.5 year old project to complete changes requested by a client on Friday. Guess what? Find the archive drive, slide it in, boom! I'm working on it. Took me 5 minutes to be up and running. Ultra-common scenario.
If FCPX can't do that, I'm facing running a separate machine with FCS basically in perpetuity. A machine that will, I might add, have a radically different editing interface than the hypothetical new FCPX machine. It's a pain no matter how you slice it.
Which brings me to your point about same-system installs: there are many reports from the field that the two versions of FC actually don't co-exist nicely on the same machine - kernel panics, lock-ups, etc.
Hell, I went to an FCPX demo last week and even the bloody Apple rep himself told me not to install it onto the same system drive. Bravo! Separate system drives for the two packages! How useful!
So, I'd kindly argue that your "crying out loud" is erroneous, at least for some.
______
As an aside, what I did like in the demo, I really liked. I think this product has a bright future.
But I think it will also have a dismal and trying present.
Apple has rocked the boat hard...and it has made waves, both good and bad. I believe thay have set themselves back 2 or 3 years in this game for the time being - we'll see whether they come out on top as the major professional production tool of choice or not...
Many studios need to access previous projects. For example I have enjoyed working with the same ten or so clients for the last 15 years. They consider everything they have ever done with you as work that they own. They expect us to pull stuff from old projects all the time.
What do you think people would say if Microsoft Word all of a sudden was unable to open files created in previous versions? Office workers have no need to open old projects! It is a stupid request really. Yeah right!
If the XML import/export feature works as advertised it may help somewhat, but it still requires that you maintain a working FCP7 workstation to do the exporting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dacloo
No it is not. It is a worthless consumer request. Professional studios dont't switch apps during a project and have no need to open old projects in fcpx at all.
It is a stupid request really, I mean, final cut studio 3 does not suddenly invalidate. It's not an OS upgrade either, replacing an old version. It's just a set of apps you can install on the same machine, for crying out loud! Just not run at the same time.
Anyway technically wise it's not possible to open old projects because it's so different: fcpx uses tags and stores files in a database.
Why did Apple feel the need to add features? Afer all, we were told repeatedly on this site and others that editors who wanted things like XML were just troglodytes and luddites who were afraid of change. Is Apple catering to neanderthals now?
XML is a pro's request and opens the door for third party developers being able to read and write the file. Just an example of this is Mocha Pro being able to ingest transformation tracking data.
XML (and a general plugin API which FCPX lacks) is important to build a platform that lasts.
What evidence is there of this? Adobe reported they've sold 45% more copies of Premiere than last year. Notice they didn't give any real numbers, likely because it's 45% more of hardly anything.
Just to let you know, this statement makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously.
Sorry your first page result in Google only showed a 45% INCREASE in Premiere sales on another Apple Rumor site. Sorry you didn't dig deeper. Sorry for shattering your bubble.
Just to let you know, shoddy attempts to discredit someones statement by doing a 5 second google search... make all and any of your counter statements, (for the rest of your life), difficult to take seriously.
You still haven't found any real numbers for what that 45% increase means. It could mean we sold 145 copies this year - while we only sold 100 last year.
Adobe would have to sell hundreds of thousands of copies to gain market share on FCP or Avid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode
Sorry your first page result in Google only showed a 45% INCREASE in Premiere sales on another Apple Rumor site. Sorry you didn't dig deeper. Sorry for shattering your bubble.
Just to let you know, shoddy attempts to discredit someones statement by doing a 5 second google search... make all and any of your counter statements, (for the rest of your life), difficult to take seriously.
At some point, FCP 7 will not be able to run on the latest Mac hardware and Latest Mac OS -- probably 2-3 years from now.
If editors want to be able to open FCP 7 projects they will need to maintain FCP 7 seats with people trained on ever more obsolescent, FCP7/FCS apps, OS X version and hardware.
Many editors have a need to go back and perform minor updates on legacy projects such as educational material.
Over time, it will become more difficult and costly to do so. Realizing this, most editors are looking for a path forward from FCP 7/FCS.
So far, no path forward exists for FCP 7 to FCPX. There are "best effort" paths forward for Adobe and Avid.
It is technically possible to move FCP 7 projects manually to FCPX. I've done it.
You can't open FCP 7 projects with FCPX, * that is true. But it has nothing to do with tags or the database.
* nor can you open FCP 7 projects with Adobe or Avid.
FCPX stores tags, data and metadata (from the clips, user tagging and from clip analysis) in the database. The actual media files are not stored in the database -- only referenced by it. The media can be copied into FCPX specified locations or it can remain where it currently exists -- and be accessible by both FCPX and FCP 7.
Event Database information is created as media is ingested into FCPX (whether the media is copied or stays in place).
Similarily, Project Database information is created as events, effects, etc. are edited into the Storyline.
The source media doesn't move and remains unchanged.
Much of the speed gain in FCPX is because it can get all the info from the database -- as opposed to continuously going out to the clips to access the data. On a large FCP 7 project this can result in a significant amount of BeachBalling.
Lion supports virtualization of Mac OS X, so as long at the VM can support at least Lion, you'll be able to run FCP7 on a Mac.
Wow. Apple almost NEVER pre-announces upcoming features like this (WWDC announcements notwithstanding). They're definitely getting out of their comfort zone trying to win over some of the Final Cut Pro users they've riled up over the .0 release.
Actually they DO pre-announce from time to time. For example, they had pre-announced FCPX at a video editors' conference, they had pre-announced Logic Pro 8 at an audio one.
Why did Apple feel the need to add features? Afer all, we were told repeatedly on this site and others that editors who wanted things like XML were just troglodytes and luddites who were afraid of change. Is Apple catering to neanderthals now?
Who said, in this site or elsewhere, that "editors who wanted things like XML were just troglodytes and luddites who were afraid of change"?
Now, editors that complain about the UI "dumbing down" are indeed troglodytes afraid of change.
Oh, and editors that suddenly don't understand that their old FC 7 version works just as fine as it did, while needed features are added to future FCPX versions are also "troglodytes afraid of change".
In short, they wanted a new version, as long as it wasn't new enough --i.e the classic Adobe way of piling some stuff on top of bloated 20-year-old codebases and calling it the next version.
Bad news. XML import FOR OTHER FCPX 10.1 project ONLY. FCP7 or PPRO XML files are not supported.
What a dud.
You *do* understand what XML is, right? *Right*?
You understand that from the moment it supports XML import, it's a matter of days to see import from FCP7 and PPRO XML implemented, possibly by third parties...
You understand that from the moment it supports XML import, it's a matter of days to see import from FCP7 and PPRO XML implemented, possibly by third parties...
You don't seem to understand that in order for FCPX to import xml it needs to be able to parse it and understand what the nodes mean. If the export functions from other standards based xml decision lists are not understood by FCPX there is nothing that a third party can do except write a plugin for the exporting application to format the xml in a non-standard FCPX format. I seriously doubt that is going to happen.
So, no one's going to mention that the ability to open a FCP 7 file requires a $400 plugin?
FCP X is an unbelievable bargain at it's current price. What's $400? If you're a pro, you can make this back in several hours work (or several hours work saved).
FCP X is an unbelievable bargain at it's current price. What's $400? If you're a pro, you can make this back in several hours work (or several hours work saved).
A Prius is an excellent bargain at $35K if what you need to do is run errands - you'll save lots of money on gas. But if you need to transport bags of cement and concrete block, it is a complete waste of money because it can't do the job.
But Apple NEVER releases a product until it is as perfect as then possible. Look at cut and paste. They could have released a half-assed version on the first iPhone. But it took them YEARS to figure out how to do it, so they refused to release anything for several years.
Now they release a product which is lacking?
Is this a new strategy? Release an incomplete beta and add stuff if, as and when customers scream?
Isn't that a very Google-like way of going about things?
Hmmm - Conrad Joe has only been a member since this month and already over 200 posts. Can we maybe say "professional troll"? Besides the fact that he is clueless. It didn't take Apple "years" to introduce cut and paste, and to not think that Apple already had most of these new features planned is just plain stupid. Especially with how quickly they were released. Once again, Apple changes the paradigm of how we work, and we have the whinners and fools rearing their heads.j This was version ONE of a totally new, and complex, editing system. Get over yourself.
Comments
No it is not. It is a worthless consumer request. Professional studios dont't switch apps during a project and have no need to open old projects in fcpx at all.
It is a stupid request really, I mean, final cut studio 3 does not suddenly invalidate. It's not an OS upgrade either, replacing an old version. It's just a set of apps you can install on the same machine, for crying out loud! Just not run at the same time.
Anyway technically wise it's not possible to open old projects because it's so different: fcpx uses tags and stores files in a database.
You're completely missing the point.
Every studio I've ever worked in has a need to open old projects all the time. In fact, just yesterday I worked on a 2.5 year old project to complete changes requested by a client on Friday. Guess what? Find the archive drive, slide it in, boom! I'm working on it. Took me 5 minutes to be up and running. Ultra-common scenario.
If FCPX can't do that, I'm facing running a separate machine with FCS basically in perpetuity. A machine that will, I might add, have a radically different editing interface than the hypothetical new FCPX machine. It's a pain no matter how you slice it.
Which brings me to your point about same-system installs: there are many reports from the field that the two versions of FC actually don't co-exist nicely on the same machine - kernel panics, lock-ups, etc.
Hell, I went to an FCPX demo last week and even the bloody Apple rep himself told me not to install it onto the same system drive. Bravo! Separate system drives for the two packages! How useful!
So, I'd kindly argue that your "crying out loud" is erroneous, at least for some.
______
As an aside, what I did like in the demo, I really liked. I think this product has a bright future.
But I think it will also have a dismal and trying present.
Apple has rocked the boat hard...and it has made waves, both good and bad. I believe thay have set themselves back 2 or 3 years in this game for the time being - we'll see whether they come out on top as the major professional production tool of choice or not...
What do you think people would say if Microsoft Word all of a sudden was unable to open files created in previous versions? Office workers have no need to open old projects! It is a stupid request really. Yeah right!
If the XML import/export feature works as advertised it may help somewhat, but it still requires that you maintain a working FCP7 workstation to do the exporting.
No it is not. It is a worthless consumer request. Professional studios dont't switch apps during a project and have no need to open old projects in fcpx at all.
It is a stupid request really, I mean, final cut studio 3 does not suddenly invalidate. It's not an OS upgrade either, replacing an old version. It's just a set of apps you can install on the same machine, for crying out loud! Just not run at the same time.
Anyway technically wise it's not possible to open old projects because it's so different: fcpx uses tags and stores files in a database.
No it is not. It is a worthless consumer request. Professional studios... have no need to open old projects
Are you insane?
Why did Apple feel the need to add features? Afer all, we were told repeatedly on this site and others that editors who wanted things like XML were just troglodytes and luddites who were afraid of change. Is Apple catering to neanderthals now?
XML is a pro's request and opens the door for third party developers being able to read and write the file. Just an example of this is Mocha Pro being able to ingest transformation tracking data.
XML (and a general plugin API which FCPX lacks) is important to build a platform that lasts.
Many studios need to access previous projects.
Sure they do, but as I wrote you can use FCP 7 to do so.
Runs perfectly on Lion, does everything you need to finalize old projects.
Are you insane?
No I am not. Just don't quote one line to change the context of my post. Read beyond that line.
How lame.
What evidence is there of this? Adobe reported they've sold 45% more copies of Premiere than last year. Notice they didn't give any real numbers, likely because it's 45% more of hardly anything.
Just to let you know, this statement makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously.
Sorry your first page result in Google only showed a 45% INCREASE in Premiere sales on another Apple Rumor site. Sorry you didn't dig deeper. Sorry for shattering your bubble.
Just to let you know, shoddy attempts to discredit someones statement by doing a 5 second google search... make all and any of your counter statements, (for the rest of your life), difficult to take seriously.
You still haven't found any real numbers for what that 45% increase means. It could mean we sold 145 copies this year - while we only sold 100 last year.
Adobe would have to sell hundreds of thousands of copies to gain market share on FCP or Avid.
Sorry your first page result in Google only showed a 45% INCREASE in Premiere sales on another Apple Rumor site. Sorry you didn't dig deeper. Sorry for shattering your bubble.
Just to let you know, shoddy attempts to discredit someones statement by doing a 5 second google search... make all and any of your counter statements, (for the rest of your life), difficult to take seriously.
What a dud.
At some point, FCP 7 will not be able to run on the latest Mac hardware and Latest Mac OS -- probably 2-3 years from now.
If editors want to be able to open FCP 7 projects they will need to maintain FCP 7 seats with people trained on ever more obsolescent, FCP7/FCS apps, OS X version and hardware.
Many editors have a need to go back and perform minor updates on legacy projects such as educational material.
Over time, it will become more difficult and costly to do so. Realizing this, most editors are looking for a path forward from FCP 7/FCS.
So far, no path forward exists for FCP 7 to FCPX. There are "best effort" paths forward for Adobe and Avid.
It is technically possible to move FCP 7 projects manually to FCPX. I've done it.
You can't open FCP 7 projects with FCPX, * that is true. But it has nothing to do with tags or the database.
* nor can you open FCP 7 projects with Adobe or Avid.
FCPX stores tags, data and metadata (from the clips, user tagging and from clip analysis) in the database. The actual media files are not stored in the database -- only referenced by it. The media can be copied into FCPX specified locations or it can remain where it currently exists -- and be accessible by both FCPX and FCP 7.
Event Database information is created as media is ingested into FCPX (whether the media is copied or stays in place).
Similarily, Project Database information is created as events, effects, etc. are edited into the Storyline.
The source media doesn't move and remains unchanged.
Much of the speed gain in FCPX is because it can get all the info from the database -- as opposed to continuously going out to the clips to access the data. On a large FCP 7 project this can result in a significant amount of BeachBalling.
Lion supports virtualization of Mac OS X, so as long at the VM can support at least Lion, you'll be able to run FCP7 on a Mac.
Wow. Apple almost NEVER pre-announces upcoming features like this (WWDC announcements notwithstanding). They're definitely getting out of their comfort zone trying to win over some of the Final Cut Pro users they've riled up over the .0 release.
Actually they DO pre-announce from time to time. For example, they had pre-announced FCPX at a video editors' conference, they had pre-announced Logic Pro 8 at an audio one.
Also: this could be Tim Cook at work.
Why did Apple feel the need to add features? Afer all, we were told repeatedly on this site and others that editors who wanted things like XML were just troglodytes and luddites who were afraid of change. Is Apple catering to neanderthals now?
Who said, in this site or elsewhere, that "editors who wanted things like XML were just troglodytes and luddites who were afraid of change"?
Now, editors that complain about the UI "dumbing down" are indeed troglodytes afraid of change.
Oh, and editors that suddenly don't understand that their old FC 7 version works just as fine as it did, while needed features are added to future FCPX versions are also "troglodytes afraid of change".
In short, they wanted a new version, as long as it wasn't new enough --i.e the classic Adobe way of piling some stuff on top of bloated 20-year-old codebases and calling it the next version.
Bad news. XML import FOR OTHER FCPX 10.1 project ONLY. FCP7 or PPRO XML files are not supported.
What a dud.
You *do* understand what XML is, right? *Right*?
You understand that from the moment it supports XML import, it's a matter of days to see import from FCP7 and PPRO XML implemented, possibly by third parties...
You *do* understand what XML is, right? *Right*?
You understand that from the moment it supports XML import, it's a matter of days to see import from FCP7 and PPRO XML implemented, possibly by third parties...
You don't seem to understand that in order for FCPX to import xml it needs to be able to parse it and understand what the nodes mean. If the export functions from other standards based xml decision lists are not understood by FCPX there is nothing that a third party can do except write a plugin for the exporting application to format the xml in a non-standard FCPX format. I seriously doubt that is going to happen.
So, no one's going to mention that the ability to open a FCP 7 file requires a $400 plugin?
FCP X is an unbelievable bargain at it's current price. What's $400? If you're a pro, you can make this back in several hours work (or several hours work saved).
FCP X is an unbelievable bargain at it's current price. What's $400? If you're a pro, you can make this back in several hours work (or several hours work saved).
A Prius is an excellent bargain at $35K if what you need to do is run errands - you'll save lots of money on gas. But if you need to transport bags of cement and concrete block, it is a complete waste of money because it can't do the job.
Wow, good call, couldn't have said it better myself.
Call me crazy but they could have released a beta or the free trial at launch and got this kind of feedback before forcing customers to pay $300.
Forcing???
Lion supports virtualization of Mac OS X, so as long at the VM can support at least Lion, you'll be able to run FCP7 on a Mac.
I didn't know that! However, that doesn't really resolve the issue:
-- The old OS X version and Old FCP 7/FCPS apps won't exploit new OS or hardware features
-- It will become increasingly more difficult to find trained people and training for the obsolescent system
-- it will become more costly, especially when compared to modern alternatives.
But Apple NEVER releases a product until it is as perfect as then possible. Look at cut and paste. They could have released a half-assed version on the first iPhone. But it took them YEARS to figure out how to do it, so they refused to release anything for several years.
Now they release a product which is lacking?
Is this a new strategy? Release an incomplete beta and add stuff if, as and when customers scream?
Isn't that a very Google-like way of going about things?
Hmmm - Conrad Joe has only been a member since this month and already over 200 posts. Can we maybe say "professional troll"? Besides the fact that he is clueless. It didn't take Apple "years" to introduce cut and paste, and to not think that Apple already had most of these new features planned is just plain stupid. Especially with how quickly they were released. Once again, Apple changes the paradigm of how we work, and we have the whinners and fools rearing their heads.j This was version ONE of a totally new, and complex, editing system. Get over yourself.
The biggest complaint which still goes unaddressed is the inability to open previous projects. That is something that every professional needed.
Bullshit! They still have FCP 7. Move on...