Your posts made this thread worth reading, (I won't comment about how often that happens here Thanks for the time you took to let us see your viewpoint, your clarity and lack of bluster are refreshing.
One side-note you brought up really got my attention....
Quote:
Originally Posted by secretgoldfish
The only real time that we KNEW Apple was adding these features was when they released them today, up until today it was only PR we had to go by and for many pro users PR suggestions are not enough to base a business decision, ...
Apple's attitude towards secrecy has served it well at the consumer level where it builds hype and excitement, but it has also worked against the company servicing pros and the enterprise for as long as I can remember and if I'm surprised by anything, it is that a company as smart as Apple hasn't been able to develop a better dual strategy for both the consumer AND enterprise markets.
The pro video workstation market (i.e. Mac Pro) is vanishingly small. It's 20,000 or something units... one hour's iPad sales or something. It's a non factor in terms of the scale of today's Apple. Apple wants to give millions of people the ability to create pro quality content. Not TV professionals. Millions of people. Sorry guys. This just isn't the old days when Apple video geeks had major clout. Look at Apple's sales numbers. They are not that boutique house anymore. Unless it serves their greater purpose having these halo users. But I doubt that is the game plan for FCPX.
The real use for FCPX is allowing people to post top quality youtube, facebook, blog and other web videos. Let's be honest, that is where the volume is. Not network TV (although that, too has expanded... )
Final Cut Pro X should have been released last year as Final Cut Express X and this should have been released now as Final Cut Pro X.
Would have prevented a lot of gnashing of teeth.
Do you honestly believe that the differences between FCPX 10.0.2 and 10.0.3 are big enough to warrant the classification as 'Express' and 'Full' version? It is still very much the same application, just with a handfull of additional features.
Have you used it yet? Those will change to in agreement when you do.
The roll eyes was for the attitude and hyperbole. It is not even a shipping product. How can it possibly be the absolute worst thing to happen to the creative arts industry? As you often say: Abject Nonsense!
The roll eyes was for the attitude and hyperbole. It is not even a shipping product. How can it possibly be the absolute worst thing to happen to the creative arts industry? As you often say: Abject Nonsense!
Right, that makes sense.
Okay, then, if they keep it how it is, it'll be the worst thing to…etc. etc…
Seriously, HOW…
Okay, here's the pencil tool. And since apparently no image of the actual cursor exists anywhere on the entire Internet, we'll have to do with the one in the UI.
Now, where would you expect it to start drawing? Perhaps the tip? Maybe even the eraser?
NO. It draws HERE:
Starting from the top left corner of the invisible bounding box that defines the size of the cursor itself.
Okay, well, that's not too bad, is it? YES. IT IS. Because they have arbitrarily assigned the various cursors in all of their tools to start performing their actions in the top left corner, in the bottom left corner, and in the bottom RIGHT corner. It's completely at random where you'll have your stuff happen. Absolutely no consideration has been taken to past versions of the software or where, based on the cursor, these actions should logically take place.
Okay, here's the pencil tool. And since apparently no image of the actual cursor exists anywhere on the entire Internet, we'll have to do with the one in the UI.
NO. It draws HERE:
Starting from the top left corner of the invisible bounding box that defines the size of the cursor itself.
Does it still say Thomas Knoll as the first name in the credits? If so then it will be just fine. You are complaining about a beta release. The pencil tool is not supposed to even have a pencil looking cursor since you can change it to all sorts of different brushes. The default one pixel is always a cross hair and the other brushes are the size and shape that is indicated in the brush selection menu. Besides in order to have an authorized beta release you have to agree to an NDA which you have just violated.
Don't worry, Apple. Everyone here will find something else to whine about Final Cut Pro X not having.
Good thing we have people like you to defend Apple.
As for dismissing the "whiners": Has it ever occurred to anyone that Apple was waiting to see how many people would "whine" before they decided to do something about the issues in Final Cut Pro X? Why devote time and resources to fix something if nobody complains about it? So it was good that people "whined" about the missing features that you now get to enjoy.
Good thing we have people like you to defend Apple.
As for dismissing the "whiners": Has it ever occurred to anyone that Apple was waiting to see how many people would "whine" before they decided to do something about the issues in Final Cut Pro X? Why devote time and resources to fix something if nobody complains about it? So it was good that people "whined" about the missing features that you now get to enjoy.
? What? You can't honestly think that Apple looked at Final Cut Pro and said, "Let's see how many people complain if we don't include something as fundamental as multi-camera editing."
It's not a case of 'what can we make them do without', it's a case of 'what can we get working the way we want working in time for launch'.
It's not a case of 'what can we make them do without', it's a case of 'what can we get working the way we want working in time for launch'.
The launch should always happen when the product is ready not when an arbitrary launch date is established. Exactly what was the urgency to release FCP X at that time?
I thought that was one reason Apple withdrew from MacWorld. Because they didn't like having to meet a specific launch deadline for new products. At NAB they only showed a beta release because they knew it was not ready. Apple apparently did consider FCP X ready when they released it. The quality control seems to be slipping a bit lately as judged by the recent 1.0 release of iBooks Author which is also rather beta-like in my opinion.
I also hope Apple's continuing work on pro video software means a Mac Pro update is coming. According to the macrumors.com buyers guide, this is the longest wait for a Mac Pro update since the Intel switch.
Agreed. I also wish that Apple would incorporate the professional graphic cards line (ati firepro and nvidia quadro) into the customisation options.
On the CPU front however, Intel hasn't released many new Xeon CPUs other than bumps in the Ghz area. This is probably why there hasn't been a need to update the MacPro line.
I do 3d rendering work and have a dual Xeon hex
Core workstation (24 rendering threads if u include hyper threading) from dell which was bought this year for work. It's basically running the same CPU options as the MacPro and this is a 2012 machine.
I just can't see apple abandoning the MacPro at anytime soon. I reckon osx marketshare will eventually increase to a point where software companies are forced to release osx versions of the wintel equivalent to capitalise on the user base and revenue. Software like Autocad is now on osx. I am waiting for the likes of 3d studio max to be ported over and then I will rid my wintel setup forever.
Not really. One of the biggest complaints from entrenched users was the inability to be able to import projects from previous versions of the software into new versions. For better or worst, that likely will never be redressed.
I can see the professional users view. It would be akin to not being able to open an Adobe Photoshop project you created in the last version of Photoshop in the new version. Professionals reuse their work. Time is money.
Apple's perspective is likely in order to eventually deliver a better product it had to start from scratch and get rid of the legacy stuff holding it back. Eventually Final Cut Pro X will probably be a better product (if Apple keeps selling copies).
See the post above there was software just released that will import fcp7 projects into fcpx now.
Pardon me for being unsympathetic, but boo hoo, too freakin' bad. Who doesn't have to relearn skills and keep up with the times? Gone are the days where you have one skill and make a 40 year career out of it.
This isn't just change for change's sake. The UI is different for a reason - take the time to learn it, and be more productive with it in the long run.
Don't mean to be rude, but that sounds like an amateur talking. You and Apple may think this new UI is more productive - and who knows, probably for making youtube videos, it is - but as professional editors are but one cog in a post-production machine, the new UI apparently sucks. Imagine if Apple decided that they were going to introduce a new, more "productive" arrangement of letters on a keyboard and shoved that down everybody's throat. "The [keyboard] is different for a reason - take the time to learn it, and be more productive with it in the long run." Yeah, right.
Final Cut Pro X should have been released last year as Final Cut Express X and this should have been released now as Final Cut Pro X.
Would have prevented a lot of gnashing of teeth.
Exactly. The fact that multicam support is here now is important for those who require it, but the fact that they didn't know in the slightest if it would arrive in time to use it on what was on their year's calendar is moreso.
Comments
CS 5.5 rocks. You really cannot work professionally in the creative arts industry without it.
Just a head's up, Photoshop CS6 is the absolute worst thing to happen to the industry since Adobe started scarfing up all those other companies.
Just a head's up
One side-note you brought up really got my attention....
The only real time that we KNEW Apple was adding these features was when they released them today, up until today it was only PR we had to go by and for many pro users PR suggestions are not enough to base a business decision, ...
Apple's attitude towards secrecy has served it well at the consumer level where it builds hype and excitement, but it has also worked against the company servicing pros and the enterprise for as long as I can remember and if I'm surprised by anything, it is that a company as smart as Apple hasn't been able to develop a better dual strategy for both the consumer AND enterprise markets.
Nailed it.
The real use for FCPX is allowing people to post top quality youtube, facebook, blog and other web videos. Let's be honest, that is where the volume is. Not network TV (although that, too has expanded... )
It was surprisingly good for a first effort.
1) All the edits and media came across
2) A 5-level video composite came across but need adjustment to the mask and repositioning of a couple of videos -- about 20 seconds to fix
3) Most Titles and effects didn't migrate, but track space was set aside so I could include comparable additions
I don't think this will satisfy a Walter Murch sequence with hundreds of tracks... but it's a start
Have you used it yet? Those
Final Cut Pro X should have been released last year as Final Cut Express X and this should have been released now as Final Cut Pro X.
Would have prevented a lot of gnashing of teeth.
Do you honestly believe that the differences between FCPX 10.0.2 and 10.0.3 are big enough to warrant the classification as 'Express' and 'Full' version? It is still very much the same application, just with a handfull of additional features.
Have you used it yet? Those
The roll eyes was for the attitude and hyperbole. It is not even a shipping product. How can it possibly be the absolute worst thing to happen to the creative arts industry? As you often say: Abject Nonsense!
The roll eyes was for the attitude and hyperbole. It is not even a shipping product. How can it possibly be the absolute worst thing to happen to the creative arts industry? As you often say: Abject Nonsense!
Right, that makes sense.
Okay, then, if they keep it how it is, it'll be the worst thing to…etc. etc…
Seriously, HOW…
Okay, here's the pencil tool. And since apparently no image of the actual cursor exists anywhere on the entire Internet, we'll have to do with the one in the UI.
Now, where would you expect it to start drawing? Perhaps the tip? Maybe even the eraser?
NO. It draws HERE:
Starting from the top left corner of the invisible bounding box that defines the size of the cursor itself.
Okay, well, that's not too bad, is it? YES. IT IS. Because they have arbitrarily assigned the various cursors in all of their tools to start performing their actions in the top left corner, in the bottom left corner, and in the bottom RIGHT corner. It's completely at random where you'll have your stuff happen. Absolutely no consideration has been taken to past versions of the software or where, based on the cursor, these actions should logically take place.
If that is not fixed, I tell you what…
But for those that complained, is it too little, too late and they moved on to Adobe Premiere?
Avid.
Okay, here's the pencil tool. And since apparently no image of the actual cursor exists anywhere on the entire Internet, we'll have to do with the one in the UI.
NO. It draws HERE:
Starting from the top left corner of the invisible bounding box that defines the size of the cursor itself.
Does it still say Thomas Knoll as the first name in the credits? If so then it will be just fine. You are complaining about a beta release. The pencil tool is not supposed to even have a pencil looking cursor since you can change it to all sorts of different brushes. The default one pixel is always a cross hair and the other brushes are the size and shape that is indicated in the brush selection menu. Besides in order to have an authorized beta release you have to agree to an NDA which you have just violated.
Don't worry, Apple. Everyone here will find something else to whine about Final Cut Pro X not having.
Good thing we have people like you to defend Apple.
As for dismissing the "whiners": Has it ever occurred to anyone that Apple was waiting to see how many people would "whine" before they decided to do something about the issues in Final Cut Pro X? Why devote time and resources to fix something if nobody complains about it? So it was good that people "whined" about the missing features that you now get to enjoy.
Good thing we have people like you to defend Apple.
As for dismissing the "whiners": Has it ever occurred to anyone that Apple was waiting to see how many people would "whine" before they decided to do something about the issues in Final Cut Pro X? Why devote time and resources to fix something if nobody complains about it? So it was good that people "whined" about the missing features that you now get to enjoy.
? What? You can't honestly think that Apple looked at Final Cut Pro and said, "Let's see how many people complain if we don't include something as fundamental as multi-camera editing."
It's not a case of 'what can we make them do without', it's a case of 'what can we get working the way we want working in time for launch'.
It's not a case of 'what can we make them do without', it's a case of 'what can we get working the way we want working in time for launch'.
The launch should always happen when the product is ready not when an arbitrary launch date is established. Exactly what was the urgency to release FCP X at that time?
I thought that was one reason Apple withdrew from MacWorld. Because they didn't like having to meet a specific launch deadline for new products. At NAB they only showed a beta release because they knew it was not ready. Apple apparently did consider FCP X ready when they released it. The quality control seems to be slipping a bit lately as judged by the recent 1.0 release of iBooks Author which is also rather beta-like in my opinion.
I also hope Apple's continuing work on pro video software means a Mac Pro update is coming. According to the macrumors.com buyers guide, this is the longest wait for a Mac Pro update since the Intel switch.
Agreed. I also wish that Apple would incorporate the professional graphic cards line (ati firepro and nvidia quadro) into the customisation options.
On the CPU front however, Intel hasn't released many new Xeon CPUs other than bumps in the Ghz area. This is probably why there hasn't been a need to update the MacPro line.
I do 3d rendering work and have a dual Xeon hex
Core workstation (24 rendering threads if u include hyper threading) from dell which was bought this year for work. It's basically running the same CPU options as the MacPro and this is a 2012 machine.
I just can't see apple abandoning the MacPro at anytime soon. I reckon osx marketshare will eventually increase to a point where software companies are forced to release osx versions of the wintel equivalent to capitalise on the user base and revenue. Software like Autocad is now on osx. I am waiting for the likes of 3d studio max to be ported over and then I will rid my wintel setup forever.
Every professional that I know that uses FCP has stayed with FCP 7... and I doubt that this will get any of them to change at this point.
Same here!
Not really. One of the biggest complaints from entrenched users was the inability to be able to import projects from previous versions of the software into new versions. For better or worst, that likely will never be redressed.
I can see the professional users view. It would be akin to not being able to open an Adobe Photoshop project you created in the last version of Photoshop in the new version. Professionals reuse their work. Time is money.
Apple's perspective is likely in order to eventually deliver a better product it had to start from scratch and get rid of the legacy stuff holding it back. Eventually Final Cut Pro X will probably be a better product (if Apple keeps selling copies).
See the post above there was software just released that will import fcp7 projects into fcpx now.
Pardon me for being unsympathetic, but boo hoo, too freakin' bad. Who doesn't have to relearn skills and keep up with the times? Gone are the days where you have one skill and make a 40 year career out of it.
This isn't just change for change's sake. The UI is different for a reason - take the time to learn it, and be more productive with it in the long run.
Don't mean to be rude, but that sounds like an amateur talking. You and Apple may think this new UI is more productive - and who knows, probably for making youtube videos, it is - but as professional editors are but one cog in a post-production machine, the new UI apparently sucks. Imagine if Apple decided that they were going to introduce a new, more "productive" arrangement of letters on a keyboard and shoved that down everybody's throat. "The [keyboard] is different for a reason - take the time to learn it, and be more productive with it in the long run." Yeah, right.
Final Cut Pro X should have been released last year as Final Cut Express X and this should have been released now as Final Cut Pro X.
Would have prevented a lot of gnashing of teeth.
Exactly. The fact that multicam support is here now is important for those who require it, but the fact that they didn't know in the slightest if it would arrive in time to use it on what was on their year's calendar is moreso.