Rumor: Apple axed 'evolutionary' 64-bit Final Cut Pro 8 for 'revolutionary' FCPX

245678

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 148
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,352member
    So Apple please go back and finish it! There is room for FCPro 8 and Final Cut X. Just drop iMovie for X and you're all set.
  • Reply 22 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Conrail View Post


    What's courageous about taking the easy path?



    Ha, explain to me what's "easy" about rewriting a complex video editor from scratch? When you think about it, wouldn't the "easy path" be to simply update FCP8?
  • Reply 23 of 148
    glnfglnf Posts: 27member
    This move by Apple is likely introducing more people to Final Cut and will generate more turnover.



    Meanwhile I will switch to Avid or Premiere (I hate the idea but I have to). My students at art university will switch too (some already have (here in Zurich, Switzerland)). Then they go out and become part of the creative industry. Film makers, motion designers, 3D artists, composers, editors, screen writers, stage designers, ... And since we are already at it we might as well (or will be forced by Apple with similar moves on the hardware side) to switch hardware. A minority of users, of course. But the creative industry was where Apple gained a lot of cudos, and a lot of free advertising. So I'm curious to see what the means for Apple in the long run. Image-wise first. Then turnover-wise.
  • Reply 24 of 148
    I watched that video when it was up.



    My impression is that Richard Harrington made his decision to switch to Adobe long before Final Cut X was previewed to editors.



    For his needs, Adobe appeared to be a better solution.



    As to the statement about FCP 8... It was almost mentioned in passing -- with very little elaboration:



    Quote:

    an "evolutionary" 64-bit Final Cut Pro 8 update



    I suspect that FCP 8 did not have some of the "revolutionary" features of FCP X that are beginning to gain favor -- things like wicked-fast editing UI, background rendering, magnetic story-line, comprehensive metadata...



    AIR, sometime in the last year or so, some Final Cut Apple developers left Apple in a disagreement -- likely. over FCP8 vs FCP X.



    Finally, Richard Harrington, towards the end of the video, said that FCP X was a good product that would satisfy the majority of editing needs -- and there were only about 10,000 editors in the world that needed something more robust than the current FCP X!



    The panelists generally agreed that most editors should know at 2 least NLEs. Another panelist, Larry Engel, said that they were training all their students in FCP X.



    Quote:

    ...Larry Engel, Filmmaker in Residence at American University. It was Larry's and the University's decision to train all new students on FCPX which was the original newsworthy reason why we were going to post the video.



    Here's another fcp.co video worth watching:



    MacBreak Studio talks about audio editing and plugin problems in FCPX



    Beware: If you are familiar with NLEs and have pre-judged FCP X -- you might see some things that show you a preview of the future of editing...



  • Reply 25 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Filmantopia View Post


    Everyone keeps saying that Apple has made a shift from prosumer to consumer with this software... but I'm not convinced. I think that Apple has simply made an intelligent wager on this paradigm shift with FCPX which has, for the time being, reduced its feature set. However, over time when they regain these features they'll be 5 legs up on other pro editor apps, already prepared to interface with future hardware changes in the industry (such as touch screens).



    And guess who controls the future of hardware in the industry.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post


    Ha, explain to me what's "easy" about rewriting a complex video editor from scratch? When you think about it, wouldn't the "easy path" be to simply update FCP8?



    By easy path, I meant it's easier (and more economically rewarding) to cater to people who fall for buzzwords like "magical" and are happy if their Angry Birds player comes in multiple colors, as opposed to making products based on what the user requires as opposed to what looks pretty.
  • Reply 26 of 148
    jm6032jm6032 Posts: 147member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by blur35mm View Post


    I miss the days of "pro story of the week". It was inspiring to see what the big boys were doing while we tinkered and toyed around and tried to emulate the things they were doing. Now, there is nothing inspirational there anymore.



    Ah, you have discovered the secret sauce. As long as the pro's were using the product, you could tinker and dream. Now all you can do is tinker. Do you need new software for that?



    Why spend money on FCPX and get something that makes you no better than your neighbor? Before this, you could dream. You could imagine making something even your neighbor would ooh and aah over. Now, bleh, anyone can edit as well as you.



    Yes, Apple will sell lots of copies of FCPX. But, no longer will you be getting the ability to dream you could edit like a pro.
  • Reply 27 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by glnf View Post


    This move by Apple is likely introducing more people to Final Cut and will generate more turnover.



    Meanwhile I will switch to Avid or Premiere (I hate the idea but I have to). My students at art university will switch too (some already have (here in Zurich, Switzerland)). Then they go out and become part of the creative industry. Film makers, motion designers, 3D artists, composers, editors, screen writers, stage designers, ... And since we are already at it we might as well (or will be forced by Apple with similar moves on the hardware side) to switch hardware. A minority of users, of course. But the creative industry was where Apple gained a lot of cudos, and a lot of free advertising. So I'm curious to see what the means for Apple in the long run. Image-wise first. Then turnover-wise.



    You know what, that's a fine decision. Each of these companies have different goals and audiences they cater to, and your students should definitely learn what the industry demands right now. I think it's silly for anyone to learn FCP7 at this point.



    That said, I still think it will be valuable for your students to at least be aware of FCPX and how it works. I don't think it'll be used by most major production houses, but then again, they weren't using Final Cut to being with. It's definitely a "wait and see" approach, but I wouldn't write of FCPX right now, especially since it is a very capable tool for being a 1.0 product.
  • Reply 28 of 148
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,352member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jm6032 View Post


    Ah, you have discovered the secret sauce. As long as the pro's were using the product, you could tinker and dream. Now all you can do is tinker. Do you need new software for that?



    Why spend money on FCPX and get something that makes you no better than your neighbor? Before this, you could dream. You could imagine making something even your neighbor would ooh and aah over. Now, bleh, anyone can edit as well as you.



    Yes, Apple will sell lots of copies of FCPX. But, no longer will you be getting the ability to dream you could edit like a pro.



    Here is a quote from Wikipedia about usage in 2007.



    "According to a 2007 SCRI study, Final Cut Pro made up 49% of the US professional editing market, with Avid at 22%."



    That was a pretty significant market penetration. I wonder how many of those are now using FCProX instead ... I seriously doubt many: I really hope Apple are looking into going back to 8 and finishing it for pros.
  • Reply 29 of 148
    rainrain Posts: 538member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    Watch out. ConradJoe will add you to his Enemies List

    Don't take yourself so seriously. You declare your intention to go back to Windows like the world should take notice? Should I announce my intention to switch brands of motor oil? You know, because its really important for the Internet to know my personal choices! (Yeah right).



    Most of the Internet is people voicing their opinions and choices... It's what makes the Internet tick - ad revenue, selling, marketing, consumer ratings, social media etc...



    The 'motor oil' brands pay billions of dollars to find out why you switch brands... So I'm pretty sure they would be ecstatic if you let people know your switching brands and why.



    I found his post interesting and informative (more then yours), as our company finds itself in a similar situation - after 25 years of Apple we are actually considering a switch to windows for the same reasons. Apple has and is abandoning the prosumer market.



    Don't be so quick to judge what people find valuable in these forums that they actually spend the time to read them.
  • Reply 30 of 148
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,352member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rain View Post


    Most of the Internet is people voicing their opinions and choices... It's what makes the Internet tick - ad revenue, selling, marketing, consumer ratings, social media etc...



    The 'motor oil' brands pay billions of dollars to find out why you switch brands... So I'm pretty sure they would be ecstatic if you let people know your switching brands and why.



    I found his post interesting and informative (more then yours), as our company finds itself in a similar situation - after 25 years of Apple we are actually considering a switch to windows for the same reasons. Apple has and is abandoning the prosumer market.



    Don't be so quick to judge what people find valuable in these forums that they actually spend the time to read them.



    Excuse me but Apple is embracing the prosumer market! It may or may not be letting down the folks in the professional market (I will have to wait another year or so to answer that one) but certainly not the prosumers. FinalCut X, as an example, is totally a prosumer product.
  • Reply 31 of 148
    rainrain Posts: 538member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Here is a quote from Wikipedia about usage in 2007.



    "According to a 2007 SCRI study, Final Cut Pro made up 49% of the US professional editing market, with Avid at 22%."



    That was a pretty significant market penetration. I wonder how many of those are now using FCProX instead ... I seriously doubt many: I really hope Apple are looking into going back to 8 and finishing it for pros.



    The day Apple releases an option for a professional display (35 cents worth of chemical coating), is the day you know Apple wants professionals looking at their products again.



    Sadly, that day hasn't come.
  • Reply 32 of 148
    rainrain Posts: 538member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Excuse me but Apple is embracing the prosumer market! It may or may not be letting down the folks in the professional market (I will have to wait another year or so to answer that one) but certainly not the prosumers. FinalCut X, as an example, is totally a prosumer product.



    Ok Zoolander, but how do you expect people to use the software if they can't even see what's on the screen?
  • Reply 33 of 148
    dave k.dave k. Posts: 1,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vandil View Post


    When Apple was "Apple Computer, Inc." they were more concerned with making powerful Macintosh computers that were used by the publishing, graphic arts, film making, and other creative industries. The higher-end models even echoed some of the high-end workstation-class systems from NEXT. To have an G5 Tower used to be the mark of an accomplished power user. The Apple website would have a front page link to the Pro Story of the week, talking about some business or government or University that deployed a huge IT solution using Apple Pro software and Pro-level Macintosh systems.



    Then Apple went consumer, got into making iPods and selling music, and iPhones, and had a whole ton of non-pros using their products, many of whom thought Macs were too difficult to switch to. So Apple worked on making Macs easier to switch to and even easier to work with those consumer products the non-Pros were buying.



    Then, Apple became "Apple, Inc." They are getting way more money from non-Pros and pro-sumers than the actual Pros... and they've shifted.



    Apple's target market went from University/IT/Creative Pros to middle-to-upper class households that drink Keurig Coffee while they use iPads to read books on their IKEA couch, pondering which wine to have with their Chicken & Gnocchi soup for dinner tonight, as their MacBook Pro is downloading the latest iTunes Movie Rental over 50MB broadband in the living room of a $150K house or $2000/mo apartment in the city, while their Ugg boots dry nicely in the corner beside their North Face winter coat.



    Nice post.



    I wonder if the reason why Apple is "ditching" the pro market can be traced back to fact that the pro market never really adopted the NEXT platform and Job held kinda held a grudge against the pro market...
  • Reply 34 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by blur35mm View Post


    Perfect summary. I miss the days of "pro story of the week". It was inspiring to see what the big boys were doing while we tinkered and toyed around and tried to emulate the things they were doing. Now, there is nothing inspirational there anymore. Now it is watch the iCloud video, watch the latest iPod ad or engrave your latest product. Even Steve is gone so yet another layer of inspiration gone. Nobody wants to be Tim Cook. Maybe Jony Ive.



    I've seriously been considering a switch back to Windows because I can get the latest and greatest hardware, gaming, and speed without paying a premium for OS X. It used to be that the best apps were on OS X only, but that is not the case anymore and you ultimately end up paying a premium on hardware just for OS X. Struggling with that decision. Abandoning the Mac Pro and Final Cut Pro doesn't help their case to keep me. If they want to go consumer, then so be it. Back to Windows I go.



    Also, have you been watching Fight Club lately? :-)



    Have you tried FCP X?



    Seriously, there are some things you can do better/faster/easier in FCP X than any other way.



    Consider filming a sports event, like a football game where you use several cameras to follow certain players... then, ingesting the film, highlighting the selected shot, and publishing an instant replay;



    Here's a short video to illustrate what I mean:



    This is my grandson (the goal keep) shot with a Panny AVCHD from about 50 yards away:



    The 2nd half of the video the highlighted part was made in less than 7 seconds with FCP X.



    Dish Punt Shape Highlight



    Scrub the video to how the highlight shape changes: location; size; shape -- this was done as follows:



    -- position playhead

    -- set keyframe

    -- draw color shape mask



    -- move playhead (to where highlight adjustment needed)

    -- set keyframe

    -- reposition color shape mask (if needed)

    -- resize shape color shape mask (if needed)



    ....



    -- move playhead (to where highlight adjustment needed)

    -- set keyframe

    -- reposition color shape mask (if needed)

    -- resize color shape mask (if needed)



    Automatic tweening is performed in the intermediate frames



    Seriously, FCP X has a 30-day free trial... and it is quite powerful if you approach it without preconceived notions on how an NLE should work.



  • Reply 35 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rain View Post


    The 'motor oil' brands pay billions of dollars to find out why you switch brands... So I'm pretty sure they would be ecstatic if you let people know your switching brands and why.



    Really?

    Ok, motor oil brands: you can have my opinion for the starting price of $1 billion. Valvoline? Pennzoil? Quaker State? Who will start the bidding for my opinion?
  • Reply 36 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Excuse me but Apple is embracing the prosumer market! It may or may not be letting down the folks in the professional market (I will have to wait another year or so to answer that one) but certainly not the prosumers. FinalCut X, as an example, is totally a prosumer product.



    I hate that word.



    You know, I helped cut an independent film a few years ago on Final Cut Pro 6 at the time, and lately I have been saying to myself recently, "Wow, if we had this back then, things would have been so much easier." We spent literally hours color correcting some scenes, and I know that many (not all) could have been fixed in a few minutes with FCPX's automatic color correction. Also, having features like compound clips would have helped prevent the occasional loss of sync from certain video and audio elements as we made changes earlier in the timeline.



    So here's my question - are we less professional if we would have preferred using FCPX over the older systems at the time? Are we not "professionals" if we're not backed by a multi-million dollar studio? I hate this idea that FCPX is only used by "prosumers" simply because it's missing some features. I'd say a lot of us video editors consider ourselves professionals. If FCPX's current feature set works well within your workflow, why not use it? The tool doesn't make the man. If it works for you, great. If it doesn't, there's alternatives.



    But seriously, FCPX is not just for "prosumers."
  • Reply 37 of 148
    From a business perspective, I respect Apple's direction on FCP X: Court hundreds of thousands of amateur/enthusiasts with something more powerful than iMovie that serves 98% of their workflow needs, or satisfy 72 industry professionals with such granular workflows that anything short of Final Cut Pro God Edition would not be enough?
  • Reply 38 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post


    Having actually used FCPX, I laugh whenever I read that it isn't for "professional" customers. True, it's missing a lot of functionality, and isn't the tool I would recommend everyone to switch to right now full time. That is a temporary problem, however. In time, this app is going to morph into something that can be used to quickly cut anything from vacation footage and promo videos to full length feature films. Hell, it *already* does that. It just needs a few plugins and features to satisfy a majority of users out there, and they are coming.



    I question a lot of the criticism out there. How much of it are legitimate complaints, and how much of it are simply people refusing any sort of change. While there are things I miss from more traditional NLEs, and can name a few quirks I despise in the current version, FCPX has a lot of promise and potential that will definitely improve with time. When you get a good workflow going, it's shockingly fast cutting together video is compared to what I used to do with Adobe Premiere.



    Plus, FCPX is a *huge* value proposition. If you figure that the typical suites from Avid and Adobe cost around $2500, while FCPX along with Motion and Compressor total $400, you can basically get the editing license *AND* the hardware for the same price you'd pay just for the software alone from the competition. If you're looking to expand your production house, you can save a lot of money by going with Apple. Man, how often do you hear that statement?



    Not to forget, you can legally run a single copy of FCP X, Motion 5, Compressor concurrently on 5 Macs.



    That's $400 for 5 seats -- Other NLE suites above are per 1 seat, e.g.



    FCP 7 costs $1,000 per == $5,000 for 5 seats!
  • Reply 39 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rain View Post


    Ok Zoolander, but how do you expect people to use the software if they can't even see what's on the screen?



    not this again...
  • Reply 40 of 148
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by blur35mm View Post


    Below is the Mac Pro Refresh Schedule from MacRumors. If this isn't enough to convince you they are abandoning the Pro's...



    Nonsense. The MBP update schedule is largely limited by the availability of faster Xeon processors at a reasonable (!) price point and in sufficient quantity for Apple to use. There ARE faster Xeon processors out there, but not much faster, and very hard to get and expensive.



    When Intel has a significant improvement in CPU availability, Apple will undoubtedly update the Pro.
Sign In or Register to comment.