Apple lost me when they tied raw camera updates to the OS level and Aperture 3 couldn't support my camera -- because the RAW update won't install under 10.6.8.
Not everybody wants to be on the bleeding edge of OS updates. Last time I upgraded (10.5 to 10.6), it took me days to fix all the things Apple broke. Not interested in doing that again.
Fortunately, Adobe has a more sane support policy, so it was out with Aperture and in with Lightroom and back to work without any further ridiculousness.
Your loss. If you want continued support and new features, update your OS. Apple made it clear that was their strategy years ago, and those of us who follow their advice don't have to deal with Adobe's bloat and bugs quite as much. Aperture today may be behind on features, but it's still the best UI and DAM out there. 4 is just around the corner.
So, if you were using features in FCP 7 (or earlier) you can continue to use them and export to FCPX if you want to use features/capabilities in FCPX.
The topic of missing features has been covered exhaustively here and elsewhere. No reason to resurrect the list of them here.
Quote:
today, FCPX may not be able to do everything you were/are doing with FCP 7
And that is the point, 2 years on.
Then, I suspect you will migrate to another NLE... As the third party developers are doing little development for FCP compared to FCPX.
Just as an aside, Was FCP the only editing tool you used -- or did you use special sound editors, color editors, rotoscoping tools, 3rd-party plugins, etc?
The reason I ask is that for $300 you can get another tool, FCPX, to augment your workflow -- and improve productivity.
If nothing else, you could gain significant advantages in Log and Transfer, Clip Organization -- up to and including a first cut... Then transfer this to FCP 7 to do whatever you can't do in FCPX.
I don't know how long it's been since you tried FCPX, but there is a 30-day free trial and some good, inexpensive training from the likes of Ripple Training, Larry Jordan, Lynda.com... Also, the FCP 7 to FCPX and FCP X to FCP 7 export tools are inexpensive.
It might be worth taking a week or so, and spending a few bucks to try it...
You might be amazed how easy it is to edit clips without clicking your mouse (or waiting for them to be ingested), or apply effects and changes without waiting for rendering...
Those who like FCPX say it is fast, productive... and FUN!
Apple lost me when they tied raw camera updates to the OS level and Aperture 3 couldn't support my camera -- because the RAW update won't install under 10.6.8.
Not everybody wants to be on the bleeding edge of OS updates. Last time I upgraded (10.5 to 10.6), it took me days to fix all the things Apple broke. Not interested in doing that again.
Fortunately, Adobe has a more sane support policy, so it was out with Aperture and in with Lightroom and back to work without any further ridiculousness.
I am still laughing at that line ... "Adobe has a more sane support policy,"... good one.
Your loss. If you want continued support and new features, update your OS. Apple made it clear that was their strategy years ago, and those of us who follow their advice don't have to deal with Adobe's bloat and bugs quite as much. Aperture today may be behind on features, but it's still the best UI and DAM out there. 4 is just around the corner.
What... I almost swallowed my tongue laughing at the shear lack of facts in your post... Spend more than five minutes with Aperture and you may get a clue... Right now, in its current incarnation, Aperture is lame...
That is what some people don't get, when Apple ditched its Carbon development environment in favor of Coco it had to rewrite its programs written in Carbon from scratch.
Some high end programs like Shake we're abandoned, others like Final Cut took years to develop so it isn't an easy undertaking to rewrite. Apple also publicly said it plans to release Aperture updates.
The did make Aperture updates, but nothing substantial... Where are the lens corrections, brush-in adjustments, etc... I would not recommend Aperture to anyone, in fact I have steered three people away from it...
From what I've heard, the next generation of iMacs will have a screen that slides down so that it can also be used as a giant touch screen device on the desktop. Final Cut X was designed with this in mind so that the interface with the program will enable the user to slide shots around with the fingers, grabbing sequences with the fingertips and have a much more intuitive feel. Editing will be quick and amazing in this way and Apple will have the lead over all other editing systems. The problem is now that the hardware isn't there yet so users are stuck using a traditional interface with the new program. I still use Final Cut Pro 7 in my professional work as its still more natural for me to use (like riding a bike), but will learn the new program this next year for whenever the hardware catches up with the software.
"From what I've heard, the next generation of iMacs will have a screen that slides down so that it can also be used as a giant touch screen device on the desktop"
Where did you hear that? This seems like pure speculation to me. Of course, it also seems like a good idea...
I am still a student going to film school so I am not a pro user. But I do know how to use fcp 7, adobe premier and media composer. I tried using fcp x 10.0.7 and it is terrible. The user interface is not quicker by any means. Rendering is much slower then media composer and premier. There is no way I would recommend it.
I am still a student going to film school so I am not a pro user. But I do know how to use fcp 7, adobe premier and media composer. I tried using fcp x 10.0.7 and it is terrible. The user interface is not quicker by any means. Rendering is much slower then media composer and premier. There is no way I would recommend it.
By your comments, I suspect that you are trying to make FCPX work like FCP 7 or another NLE. The UI is different -- and initially frustrating. But if you get some training, I think you will find it is fast and fun.
Oh, no doubt. But I wasn't referring to people who didn't like the UI but rather those who couldn't make the move with missing features and functionality.
The new update looks strong. Though I have to admit I was amused by the "mono audio files in a surround project export with correct volume levels". Ooops. We though no one noticed!
What missing features? I thought Apple addressed all of them, especially with this new update. What more are there missing? Please check with the latest version of FCPX before you list them, Apple has updated the software and third parties have come out with ways to do the things that Apple didn't add.
I know some people wanted Soundtrack, but most professionals are using ProTools or Logic. Logic X is supposed to be out this year as it's getting a re-write. I guess it's probably safe to say that Aperture is getting a re-write and probably going to call it Aperture X. You know how Apple likes consistent naming.
One kind of Pro user is video editors, but another is university/biotech researchers and such, who are constantly writing experimental programs and need to download and compile open source projects with no problems. I would like to see Apple redouble their efforts in making sure OS X is UNIX-compatible and keeping their man pages and packages up to date. But also pushing things forward of course! I hope those two things are not incompatible goals.
That's also where you need nice solid workstation hardware (with checksummed memory) and a big monitor.
Your loss. If you want continued support and new features, update your OS. Apple made it clear that was their strategy years ago, and those of us who follow their advice don't have to deal with Adobe's bloat and bugs quite as much. Aperture today may be behind on features, but it's still the best UI and DAM out there. 4 is just around the corner.
From what I've heard, the next generation of iMacs will have a screen that slides down so that it can also be used as a giant touch screen device on the desktop. Final Cut X was designed with this in mind so that the interface with the program will enable the user to slide shots around with the fingers, grabbing sequences with the fingertips and have a much more intuitive feel. Editing will be quick and amazing in this way and Apple will have the lead over all other editing systems. The problem is now that the hardware isn't there yet so users are stuck using a traditional interface with the new program. I still use Final Cut Pro 7 in my professional work as its still more natural for me to use (like riding a bike), but will learn the new program this next year for whenever the hardware catches up with the software.
A screen that slides down? I'm having a little difficulty visualizing that.
Vertical to horizontal (which will lay nearly flat on desktop). In vertical it can be used in traditional computing fashion and in horizontal it will work as large touchscreen surface on the desktop. In horizontal mode keyboard will appear on screen with haptic feedback.
From Scoopertino, the most relevant (and non-joking) part of an article:
That one made me laugh. If they went on to Avid instead, there is little chance of reclaiming them considering the required investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fyngyrz
Apple lost me when they tied raw camera updates to the OS level and Aperture 3 couldn't support my camera -- because the RAW update won't install under 10.6.8.
Not everybody wants to be on the bleeding edge of OS updates. Last time I upgraded (10.5 to 10.6), it took me days to fix all the things Apple broke. Not interested in doing that again.
Fortunately, Adobe has a more sane support policy, so it was out with Aperture and in with Lightroom and back to work without any further ridiculousness.
Adobe doesn't always update older versions of Lightroom and Photoshop with raw support for the newest cameras, but they do often validate software packages on older versions of OSX. They also offer things like the DNG converter for fringe cases. Lightroom creates far less of a mess with added instructional data. The xml files take up very little space. I would say Phocus and Capture One do a bit better when it comes to raw conversions, but Lightroom does a decent job with most cameras, especially dslrs. Their weakest point would be digital back support, but if you're using a phase one or hasselblad, you may as well use their software.
You've obviously never used Aperture or spent much time with iTunes... Swing and a miss....
Plenty of time with iTunes and unfortunately plenty of time with many of Adobe's expensive products. I honestly don't get peoples dissatisfaction with iTunes as it is free, and it seems to work pretty well.
Those who like FCPX say it is fast, productive... and FUN!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACE Enterprizes
Final Cut Pro X IS fast, productive, and fun!
From Page 16 of the "FCPX Apologists Guide." I don't know if you're supposed to quote it verbatim though... (j/k )
I ask with zero malice, just genuine curiosity: Dick, do you have some kind of vested interest in more people using FCPX? Why do you go to the trouble of trying to persuade others?
I'd just like the new Mac Pro to be released asap (like yesterday) and then I could make an informed decision about whether to soldier on with FCP X on ageing hardware or move to Premiere on better non-Apple hardware.
The Apple obsession with secrecy does not match pro user needs to plan and budget.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
So, if you were using features in FCP 7 (or earlier) you can continue to use them and export to FCPX if you want to use features/capabilities in FCPX.
The topic of missing features has been covered exhaustively here and elsewhere. No reason to resurrect the list of them here.
Quote:
today, FCPX may not be able to do everything you were/are doing with FCP 7
And that is the point, 2 years on.
Then, I suspect you will migrate to another NLE... As the third party developers are doing little development for FCP compared to FCPX.
Just as an aside, Was FCP the only editing tool you used -- or did you use special sound editors, color editors, rotoscoping tools, 3rd-party plugins, etc?
The reason I ask is that for $300 you can get another tool, FCPX, to augment your workflow -- and improve productivity.
If nothing else, you could gain significant advantages in Log and Transfer, Clip Organization -- up to and including a first cut... Then transfer this to FCP 7 to do whatever you can't do in FCPX.
I don't know how long it's been since you tried FCPX, but there is a 30-day free trial and some good, inexpensive training from the likes of Ripple Training, Larry Jordan, Lynda.com... Also, the FCP 7 to FCPX and FCP X to FCP 7 export tools are inexpensive.
It might be worth taking a week or so, and spending a few bucks to try it...
You might be amazed how easy it is to edit clips without clicking your mouse (or waiting for them to be ingested), or apply effects and changes without waiting for rendering...
Those who like FCPX say it is fast, productive... and FUN!
I am still laughing at that line ... "Adobe has a more sane support policy,"... good one.
Final Cut Pro X IS fast, productive, and fun!
If people spent half as much time training as they do complaining they would realize this fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Yes, except Adobe comes with a whole new set of problems: namely extremely bloated and buggy software.
You've obviously never used Aperture or spent much time with iTunes... Swing and a miss....
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo
Your loss. If you want continued support and new features, update your OS. Apple made it clear that was their strategy years ago, and those of us who follow their advice don't have to deal with Adobe's bloat and bugs quite as much. Aperture today may be behind on features, but it's still the best UI and DAM out there. 4 is just around the corner.
What... I almost swallowed my tongue laughing at the shear lack of facts in your post... Spend more than five minutes with Aperture and you may get a clue... Right now, in its current incarnation, Aperture is lame...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
That is what some people don't get, when Apple ditched its Carbon development environment in favor of Coco it had to rewrite its programs written in Carbon from scratch.
Some high end programs like Shake we're abandoned, others like Final Cut took years to develop so it isn't an easy undertaking to rewrite. Apple also publicly said it plans to release Aperture updates.
The did make Aperture updates, but nothing substantial... Where are the lens corrections, brush-in adjustments, etc... I would not recommend Aperture to anyone, in fact I have steered three people away from it...
"From what I've heard, the next generation of iMacs will have a screen that slides down so that it can also be used as a giant touch screen device on the desktop"
Where did you hear that? This seems like pure speculation to me. Of course, it also seems like a good idea...
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnetter5
I am still a student going to film school so I am not a pro user. But I do know how to use fcp 7, adobe premier and media composer. I tried using fcp x 10.0.7 and it is terrible. The user interface is not quicker by any means. Rendering is much slower then media composer and premier. There is no way I would recommend it.
By your comments, I suspect that you are trying to make FCPX work like FCP 7 or another NLE. The UI is different -- and initially frustrating. But if you get some training, I think you will find it is fast and fun.
Here are some free sources:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/macbreak-studio/id287113664
http://www.fcp.co
http://www.fcpx.tv
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd
Oh, no doubt. But I wasn't referring to people who didn't like the UI but rather those who couldn't make the move with missing features and functionality.
The new update looks strong. Though I have to admit I was amused by the "mono audio files in a surround project export with correct volume levels". Ooops. We though no one noticed!
What missing features? I thought Apple addressed all of them, especially with this new update. What more are there missing? Please check with the latest version of FCPX before you list them, Apple has updated the software and third parties have come out with ways to do the things that Apple didn't add.
I know some people wanted Soundtrack, but most professionals are using ProTools or Logic. Logic X is supposed to be out this year as it's getting a re-write. I guess it's probably safe to say that Aperture is getting a re-write and probably going to call it Aperture X. You know how Apple likes consistent naming.
One kind of Pro user is video editors, but another is university/biotech researchers and such, who are constantly writing experimental programs and need to download and compile open source projects with no problems. I would like to see Apple redouble their efforts in making sure OS X is UNIX-compatible and keeping their man pages and packages up to date. But also pushing things forward of course! I hope those two things are not incompatible goals.
That's also where you need nice solid workstation hardware (with checksummed memory) and a big monitor.
Actually, your gain. Lightroom 4 is brilliant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista
From what I've heard, the next generation of iMacs will have a screen that slides down so that it can also be used as a giant touch screen device on the desktop. Final Cut X was designed with this in mind so that the interface with the program will enable the user to slide shots around with the fingers, grabbing sequences with the fingertips and have a much more intuitive feel. Editing will be quick and amazing in this way and Apple will have the lead over all other editing systems. The problem is now that the hardware isn't there yet so users are stuck using a traditional interface with the new program. I still use Final Cut Pro 7 in my professional work as its still more natural for me to use (like riding a bike), but will learn the new program this next year for whenever the hardware catches up with the software.
A screen that slides down? I'm having a little difficulty visualizing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
From Scoopertino, the most relevant (and non-joking) part of an article:
That one made me laugh. If they went on to Avid instead, there is little chance of reclaiming them considering the required investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fyngyrz
Apple lost me when they tied raw camera updates to the OS level and Aperture 3 couldn't support my camera -- because the RAW update won't install under 10.6.8.
Not everybody wants to be on the bleeding edge of OS updates. Last time I upgraded (10.5 to 10.6), it took me days to fix all the things Apple broke. Not interested in doing that again.
Fortunately, Adobe has a more sane support policy, so it was out with Aperture and in with Lightroom and back to work without any further ridiculousness.
Adobe doesn't always update older versions of Lightroom and Photoshop with raw support for the newest cameras, but they do often validate software packages on older versions of OSX. They also offer things like the DNG converter for fringe cases. Lightroom creates far less of a mess with added instructional data. The xml files take up very little space. I would say Phocus and Capture One do a bit better when it comes to raw conversions, but Lightroom does a decent job with most cameras, especially dslrs. Their weakest point would be digital back support, but if you're using a phase one or hasselblad, you may as well use their software.
Plenty of time with iTunes and unfortunately plenty of time with many of Adobe's expensive products. I honestly don't get peoples dissatisfaction with iTunes as it is free, and it seems to work pretty well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Those who like FCPX say it is fast, productive... and FUN!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACE Enterprizes
Final Cut Pro X IS fast, productive, and fun!
From Page 16 of the "FCPX Apologists Guide." I don't know if you're supposed to quote it verbatim though... (j/k
I ask with zero malice, just genuine curiosity: Dick, do you have some kind of vested interest in more people using FCPX? Why do you go to the trouble of trying to persuade others?
I'd just like the new Mac Pro to be released asap (like yesterday) and then I could make an informed decision about whether to soldier on with FCP X on ageing hardware or move to Premiere on better non-Apple hardware.
The Apple obsession with secrecy does not match pro user needs to plan and budget.