Apple to add multichannel audio editing to Final Cut Pro X this year

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,086member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quamb View Post


    Wow you're a friendly chap...



    I guess wanting professional up-to-date solutions from Apple is frowned upon by certain trolls on this forum.



    Intel is holding up the next-gen Macs. As far as the MacPro is concerned, what is wrong with the one you currently have. Is it suddenly unable to satisfy your needs in terms of musing FCP?? Currently there is a hexapro model which is still serious horsepower for those in the need. What I've read from other Pro owners is that their rigs are still way up there in terms of performance to handle whatever pro work they need it to do.



    So what is it about your particular situation that makes one think a current Pro is no longer up to snuff? Do tell? I suspect you just want the new stuff for the sake of wanting new stuff and not because it fails to deliver a certain function.
  • Reply 22 of 35
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    The way Hollywood is going, the entire industry will soon be based in India.



    That would be unacceptable. Our movies and television, our industry, our culture, our rules.
  • Reply 23 of 35
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


    Intel is holding up the next-gen Macs. As far as the MacPro is concerned, what is wrong with the one you currently have. Is it suddenly unable to satisfy your needs in terms of musing FCP?? Currently there is a hexapro model which is still serious horsepower for those in the need. What I've read from other Pro owners is that their rigs are still way up there in terms of performance to handle whatever pro work they need it to do.



    So what is it about your particular situation that makes one think a current Pro is no longer up to snuff? Do tell? I suspect you just want the new stuff for the sake of wanting new stuff and not because it fails to deliver a certain function.



    Nothing is wrong with the current Mac Pros. The only thing is that it's still sporting older chips, and the newer Core i7 procs have caught up with the single Xeons in terms of performance, unless you need a two chip, 8- or 12-core solution.
  • Reply 24 of 35
    quambquamb Posts: 143member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    Nothing is wrong with the current Mac Pros. The only thing is that it's still sporting older chips, and the newer Core i7 procs have caught up with the single Xeons in terms of performance, unless you need a two chip, 8- or 12-core solution.



    ^ This.



    Just so you know I personally have an old mac pro running and it's still a beast, so no - I don't need to upgrade and don't just buy things for the sake of it.



    Though the production company I work for are about to move offices and we're getting a bunch of new edit suites put together. I'm opting for FCP7 rather than Avid, though noticing that a) the current mac pro's are nearing 2 years old though you still pay an Apple "premium" and b) Apple's "pro" division seem pretty much dead these days. It does make you wonder, and you'd think be up to a fair amount of scrutiny and discussion on an Apple forum. Obviously not. Why you guys feel the need to defend Apple here is beyond me.
  • Reply 25 of 35
    foljsfoljs Posts: 390member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paxman View Post


    Who'd have thought the pro crowd would be so fickle. Did that many really jump ship? I wonder.



    Bah. just BS.



    Actual pros use the same program version for ages, and don't update to the latest version just when it comes out --they have actual work to do, they can't be messing with installations and incompatibilities and early bugs. So they had no problem with FCPX.
  • Reply 26 of 35
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,267moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Conrail View Post


    I think it's interesting they're taking a step backwards to dual viewers. The first step in abandoning the iMovie layout?



    Of course, if Jobs were still there, it would be touted as "visionary" or some such nonsense.



    I don't think so, they'll add it in as an option. I'd say the best thing to do would be to simply have a split view button in the main viewer that places clips either side-by-side or on top of each other (better use of space perhaps with widescreen content). Then you'd be able to sync the playheads of the source and timeline. It might be better if they added a timeline between the clips so that you didn't have to move the mouse around to scrub, you'd just specify the lock options:







    That's better than before as your scrubber would be in one location. There would just be a button to switch between moving the time on the source or the timeline or both together. The actual time values of each can be shown as timecode overlays or have a modified timeline in the middle showing the times of each.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Appleinsider


    "Apple clearly wants it known that FCP X should be considered a professional application, that development is on-going, and that they are listening to comments from users."



    I think that was established before but good to hear it being backed up by more developments. It's nice to see the high-end codecs being supported like MXF and RED. The blog also notes some production use on the TV show Leverage:



    * The show shoots on RED in Portland, Oregon.

    * Ships hard disks down to LA for editing.

    * RED files are transcoded to ProRes Proxy for editing.

    * The show is edited in FCP X

    * X2Pro (from Marquis Broadcast) converts the files to ProTools for audio sweetening.

    * XML exports from FCP X are sent to DaVinci Resolve for color grading

    * Final conforming of audio and video is done in FCP X

    * Final delivery is a ProRes file.



    That particular TV show is probably not the best example of a quality production but the workflow itself can be applied to anything. Tapeless from shoot to master, how it should be from now and forever more.
  • Reply 27 of 35
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,086member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quamb View Post


    ^ This.



    Just so you know I personally have an old mac pro running and it's still a beast, so no - I don't need to upgrade and don't just buy things for the sake of it.



    Though the production company I work for are about to move offices and we're getting a bunch of new edit suites put together. I'm opting for FCP7 rather than Avid, though noticing that a) the current mac pro's are nearing 2 years old though you still pay an Apple "premium" and b) Apple's "pro" division seem pretty much dead these days. It does make you wonder, and you'd think be up to a fair amount of scrutiny and discussion on an Apple forum. Obviously not. Why you guys feel the need to defend Apple here is beyond me.



    I wasn't defending Apple in any way. I too think it's a shame that the Pro has been neglected, and I do hope Apple has an update in store when the new chips are available.



    I was merely addressing your remark about current pro owners jumping ship. The owners I personally know, in addition to those that I've read about are quite happy with their rigs. They own the 8 & 12 core models that will certainly continue to provide years of good production work. They are in the business of doing serious work, not for playing video games.



    So yes, the current iMacs can give the low-end Pro models a run for their money but at the moment I think the lack of a current Pro configuration is a concern for new buyers and those with seriously old hardware.



    An iMac with Thunderbolt peripherals can really give a Pro owner a run for the money. With the exception of serious cores and perhaps high-end video cards, it seems the Pros are not what they used to be.



    I hope they come out with a new one, but there is nothing wrong with the current models in users hands right now. They don't go through models as much as consumers.
  • Reply 28 of 35
    ljocampoljocampo Posts: 657member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quamb View Post


    The storm is settling... though I do not know of any post house that is using FCPX.



    It's going to be interesting to see what becomes of the Mac Pro. Really hoping Apple has simply taken a hiatus from the Pro market, rather than completely ditching it as it clearly seems. But it's not looking good to be honest, and many of us are going to have to start jumping ship.



    I'd wait. I'm thinking Apple is going to give what people have been wanting, a mini tower. It'll be the new Mac Pro and it'll satisfy all in performance and design.
  • Reply 29 of 35
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,397member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Encouraging to see them fighting back to keep and bring back the pro crowd.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post


    final cut is just amazing.. (but it came out too soon)



    i just hope they don't go just hd4000 for their pro laptops.. lol that would be so bad.. and i can really imagine them doing it. that's what scares me



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Eventually you have to ship. Apparently many of the so called Pros don't realize that. The new Final Cut is actually pretty impressive if you look at it with an open mind. I suspect that by this time next year many people, pros included, will be flocking back.



    Apple had three choices: 1) Do another refresh of the old platform - while building FCPX up to where it is today, i.e., duplicate - at high cost - development efforts to please users - who would've complained it wasn't the significant update they expected. 2) Go without a real update for another year or more - which would've also caused B'ing and M'ing. 3) Release the new platform - basically to announce it and to let pros start playing with it in the wild and providing feedback (while they kept most production under the still competent mature old FCP) - and let people know (as with the new iMovie) that the new architecture would be fleshed out over time until it surpassed the former in nearly every meaningful way. They also significantly cut the price....



    ...and then endured those slings and arrows (no easy way to please in this situation) and are getting on with it.



    (But cross your fingers on the specs of the next way slim 15" MacBooks and whether or not it comes in a true pro flavor. This is where I think Apple SHOULD cater to its pro base: Release at least one last gen of TB equipped Mac Pros, and a laptop that's speed competitive with any on the market - as even if neither's a big niche market, both are STRATEGIC if Apple intends to hold its pro cachet.)



    I think they'll be fine and FCPX will end up being at least as well-adopted as its predecessor over time.... ....as others have noted, most pros aren't about to abandon elaborately set-up work flows until they're really sure where, uhh, the puck is going...
  • Reply 30 of 35
    I have a copy of Final Cut that I never opened, still in the box. *(Ok, I'm crazy...)



    I've followed it's progress and had envisioned using it. But circumstances dictated otherwise.



    Looks like a good app. It's gone from being an ageing app to one with a more robust, modern platform for future growth. Apple seem to be listening to it's user base and there's been update after update chasing down those features.



    Apple's ads seem to show iMac and Macbook use predominantly. 4 core/8 hyper threading. Hardly a disaster? ...and with a Thunderbolt connection, there's the option to 'workstation' those machine.



    It's not like the above machines are going to get any slower over time. There was a time when an iMac G3 or 'book' couldn't handle video or games too well. Those days are gone.



    Didn't Avid have a profits warning? *Smiles.



    Maybe the days of big honking boxes and honking software are dwindling. Maybe there isn't money to throw around.



    Competition or outsourcing from India? Hardly surprising. All sounds a bit cut throat and competitive.



    Look at the price of Final Cut on the Mac app store. £300-ish? Put that with a top end iMac and you have a prosumer/pro rig for £2k.



    Years ago, Final Cut was close to a grand? Add a dual processor 2006 model for £2k+ and an Apple big monitor at £1k... Uhm. It's alot of money to be 'pro' (however that semantic wants to be defined. A guy at home? A small studio? Somebody doing it for a living? Somebody who's merely good at using the App? A big hollywood studio? People in India working for peanuts?)



    Nothing new here. Power becomes (at least in computers...) democratised over time. 8 gigs of ram is dirt cheap. The power of a G5 'Pro' is trumped by a 1/2 inch iPad. The dual core intel Pros of yesteryear are smashed by today's iMacs. Software is cheaper (well, Apple's...not so sure about Adobe's...)



    If 'Pros' are that fickle that want to move to profit warning Avid...then good for them. Apple doesn't need them.



    All that I think is going on is the Prosumerising of a previous 'Pro' plateau. Intel has no competitive pressure (it seems...) to release an Ivy bridged Xeon any time soon. So we'll be left with an evolutionary Sandy Bridge Xeon chip IF Apple chooses to use it this time around.



    Lemon Bon Bon.
  • Reply 31 of 35
    technotechno Posts: 737member
    I don't use FCP so I am not entirely sure. But are these new features or just old ones returning?
  • Reply 32 of 35
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,597member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quamb View Post


    The storm is settling... though I do not know of any post house that is using FCPX.



    It's going to be interesting to see what becomes of the Mac Pro. Really hoping Apple has simply taken a hiatus from the Pro market, rather than completely ditching it as it clearly seems. But it's not looking good to be honest, and many of us are going to have to start jumping ship.



    Apple has posted some post houses that are using FCP X on their website. Very cool, check them out!
  • Reply 33 of 35
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,652member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    That would be unacceptable. Our movies and television, our industry, our culture, our rules.



    I don't think that a lot of U.S. film editing jobs are going to move overseas. The reason is that on any given feature, there are a small number of editors working and with the advent of computer-based editing systems, one editor can do the work of what used to take four. Also, on most major productions, the editor works very closely with the director. It might make sense to shoot a film in India, because of far-lower costs for the entire large crew, but the studios are not going to worry about the cost of a film editor - the catering bill is far higher than the editor's bill.



    I think that what you think of being "ours" is not really ours anymore anyway. And while I don't think that Indian companies are going to take over the U.S. movie studios, I wouldn't rule out foreign ownership of any U.S. media, because a large percentage of it is already foreign owned. And even companies which are U.S. registered companies frequently have foreign shareholders with huge stakes.



    Look at "U.S." publishing: Bertelsmann, the German-based conglomerate, owns Random-House and Bantam-Doubleday-Dell which comprises about 20% of U.S. trade book publishing and there are lots of other "American" publishing houses now owned by foreign conglomerates. The former Time-Warner book group, which includes Little-Brown, is owned by Hachette (French). Harper-Collins is owned by the News Corporation which was Australian until 2004. Henry Holt & Company, once owned by CBS as part of Holt, Rinehart & Winston, is now owned by the Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group (German). The educational division was sold to Harcourt, but Harcourt was sold to Reed-Elseiver (Anglo-Dutch), who then sold it to Houghton-Mifflin, which is now known as Houghton-Mifflin-Harcourt, which itself has been sold a number of times, including to Vivendi (French), but it's gone through many restructurings and the royal family of Dubai now owns a big piece of the company.



    Now let's look at the music industry: you have Sony-BMG, which comprises the former Columbia (CBS) Records and RCA Records. So that's a joint venture of the Japanese and the Germans. You have EMI, which was British and owned the American Capitol Records, but Citibank took them over and split the company up, selling the label to Vivendi (French)-Universal and the music publishing to Sony-ATV. (Other parts of Universal was sold to GE in 2004, but it's now largely owned by Comcast (which is American). Warner Bros. Records is currently owned by Thomas Lee Partners, which is an American firm. But about 75% of "American" major record labels are not owned by U.S. companies.



    Most financing for "American" films is foreign anyway and most producers are independent. This is why you see 14 logos at the head of most current films. The "studios" mainly provide/acquire financing, distribution and marketing.



    While the major film studios are still primarily U.S. owned, that could change at any time, because all it takes is a stock offer that's higher than the current price:

    Paramount is owned by Viacom (Sumner Redstone)

    Warner-Bros is owned by Time-Warner

    Columbia is owned by Sony (Japan)

    Disney-Touchstone is owned by Disney

    Universal is owned by Comcast/GE

    20cFox is owned by News Corporation (Rupert Murdoch). (Originally Australian, but re-incorporated as a U.S. company in 2004.)
  • Reply 34 of 35
    2 simple and very important features are missing.



    1. The ability to open more then one project at once



    2. Being able to create more then one timeline per project.







    I also would like to see color labeling brought back!
  • Reply 35 of 35
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,267moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by techno View Post


    I don't use FCP so I am not entirely sure. But are these new features or just old ones returning?



    Some new, some old. MXF import was in the last version and other formats like RED through a plugin I think. FCP didn't have much audio editing features as there was Soundtrack Pro but it's much better doing basic audio edits in FCPX and if proper audio editing needs done, send it to someone using ProTools or whatever. Dual Viewers were in FCP too. Some old features will get a makeover though.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boojoo007


    1. The ability to open more then one project at once



    2. Being able to create more then one timeline per project.



    I think they just need a better UI than the project library view. Instead of it sliding back and forth, it could be like a sidebar you could leave open. This effectively means every timeline behaves like a sequence tab and all open at once. Adding grouping to this library view could help keep it clean.
Sign In or Register to comment.