Apple previews Final Cut Pro 10.4 update with 8K timeline alongside new iMac Pro

Posted:
in Mac Software edited December 2017
In addition to giving testers a first look at the new iMac Pro desktop, Apple also supplied them with an upcoming release of Final Cut Pro X, which will add support for an 8K-resolution timeline and 8K ProRes files.


iMac Pro running Final Cut Pro 10.4, via postPerspective.


Apple first previewed support for un-rendered 8K files at an editor-focused event in late October. At the time, the company simply said that Final Cut Pro 10.4 will ship before the end of the year.

With the new iMac Pro and its 27-inch Retina 5K display set to go on sale this Thursday, it would appear that the Final Cut Pro update is also near-final. Accordingly, testers were given a preview with their early look at the iMac Pro.

postPerspective's Thomas Grove Carter had the opportunity to test Final Cut Pro 10.4 and came away impressed. In one test, he exported a 90-minute feature film in ProRes HD, and the process took just just 2 minutes and 34 seconds.

In another test, he took 8K footage shot on a Panavision Millennium DXL, and found that the iMac Pro with Final Cut Pro 10.4 handled the 8K ProRes 4:4:4:4 files perfectly.

"Even after adding a couple of color corrections and a blur to the clips it still didn't drop a frame," Carter wrote. "I should add that this was playing back at better quality and without rendering. I'll repeat that once more. 8K. Color correction. Blur. No rendering. No '1/4 quality' BS. No frames dropped."


Source: Richard Taylor via Twitter


Other tests included less common codec R3D, and Red RAW files stored on an external drive, as well as shared storage over 10-Gigabit Ethernet. In every case, Carter said he was blown away by the results.

"For me, if an equally powerful Mac Pro existed, I'd still choose this iMac Pro over it, because I love the all-in-one compact design and the way it sits in my edit suite," he said. "I can't wait to use the iMac Pro for genuine work and really put it through its paces. I'm slightly dizzied by its power, and the potential that power has for delivering amazing work."

In addition to 8K rendering, Final Cut Pro 10.4 will also add support for virtual reality footage, high dynamic range lighting, and HEVC compression. The professional editing suite is available for purchase from the Mac App Store for $299.99.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    I’m salivating but mainly just because I love Final Cut updates! Concerning 8k though, wasn’t the school of thought that this would be far beyond the perception of the human eye? I will save it I can see a big difference between 1080 and 4K but beyond that? Is the goal of 8K more about being able to crop in and ultimately saving at a 4K resolution?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 21
    I’m salivating but mainly just because I love Final Cut updates! Concerning 8k though, wasn’t the school of thought that this would be far beyond the perception of the human eye? I will save it I can see a big difference between 1080 and 4K but beyond that? Is the goal of 8K more about being able to crop in and ultimately saving at a 4K resolution?
    Nah.. it’s depend on how big a screen you play it. IMAX could be more or less 8K. It’s not for watching on a desktop, or even TV, that’s for sure. 
    edited December 2017 SpamSandwichwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 21
    I’m salivating but mainly just because I love Final Cut updates! Concerning 8k though, wasn’t the school of thought that this would be far beyond the perception of the human eye? I will save it I can see a big difference between 1080 and 4K but beyond that? Is the goal of 8K more about being able to crop in and ultimately saving at a 4K resolution?
    I have a 4K HDR TV, and while I love it, you'll be hard pressed to find a huge difference from even a 1080p TV without having them literally side by side to compare. The biggest difference, for me, was the upgrade to a full array backlight with local dimming, so blacks on the LED display as "truer" blacks. If you get an OLED 4K panel, the difference is even more pronounced. None of that has anything to do with 8K resolution, though.

    8K could apply in theaters, or cropping (as you suggest). But I can't imagine it will mean much for home use. Or even most pro users.

    Pretty damn sweet to have, though!
  • Reply 4 of 21
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,273member
    Remember, editing is naturally destructive.  The longer you can keep the source material at the original resolution, the better - even if you aren’t targeting 8K or even 4K for the final output.

    This thing will be a game changer for Final Cut Pro users!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 21
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,273member
    appex said:
    I am using an Apple Cinema Display 22-inch purchased almost 18 years ago and it works great. And it has been on an average of 15 hours a day, 356 days each year.
    Only because you don’t know any better.  If you had a brand new,  identical one and placed it next to your well used 18 year old one the difference would be startling.  Never mind the advances in display technology in the last 18 years.  Even if you just deal with text and surf the web, Retina displays are a LOT easier on the eyes.

    Now, I still prefer to have my display seperated from my computer - but claiming that most people should still be using the same display 18 years later or your trashing the planet is more than a little hyperbolic.
    racerhomiechiaking editor the grateStrangeDaysfastasleep
  • Reply 6 of 21
    glynhglynh Posts: 130member
    appex said:
    Nope. Programmed obsolescence. All-in-one (AIO) computers like iMac are a huge aggression to planet Earth. Computers may last for seven years or less, whereas displays may last for more than 20 years. I am using an Apple Cinema Display 22-inch purchased almost 18 years ago and it works great. And it has been on an average of 15 hours a day, 356 days each year.
    That's the third time I've seen you cut & paste this exact same comment in the last three articles consecutively regarding the iMac Pro! No scratch that...its up to six times now. Do you have a deep-rooted psychological issue with iMac's that you need therapy for?
    edited December 2017 docno42racerhomieking editor the gratestompyfastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 21
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 451member
    docno42 said:
    appex said:
    I am using an Apple Cinema Display 22-inch purchased almost 18 years ago and it works great. And it has been on an average of 15 hours a day, 356 days each year.
    Only because you don’t know any better.  If you had a brand new,  identical one and placed it next to your well used 18 year old one the difference would be startling.  Never mind the advances in display technology in the last 18 years.  Even if you just deal with text and surf the web, Retina displays are a LOT easier on the eyes.

    Now, I still prefer to have my display seperated from my computer - but claiming that most people should still be using the same display 18 years later or your trashing the planet is more than a little hyperbolic.
    Not to mention power consumption. I’m pretty sure today’s displays use a lot less energy than an 18 year old dinosaur. 
    racerhomiechia
  • Reply 8 of 21
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,273member
    robbyx said:
    Not to mention power consumption. I’m pretty sure today’s displays use a lot less energy than an 18 year old dinosaur. 
    Not necessarily.  Higher resolution displays require more powerfull backlights, but newer backlights tend to be LED instead of cold cathode so it just depends.  And in the scheme of things, power consumption is pretty inconsiquential (excpet for the Plasma hanging in my living room - looking forward to replacing it with OLED in a few years!).

    I’d be changing a display out just to be kinder than my eyes!
  • Reply 9 of 21
    I have a 60" 4K screen. If I am standing right in front of it, it is not particularly sharp. Especially compared with my old 5K iMac. If you wanted a huge, immersive and ultra-sharp monitor, 8K would make sense. I think I'd need at least a 100" screen to benefit from 8K from my sofa. And that is in a small room.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 21
    I want a new Tesla Roadster 2.0 because it can accelerate 0-60 in 1.9 sec.  Really I do, but I'm legally blind.

    I want the new iMac Pro because..., but I only use my Mac Mini to build/modify Excel spreadsheets to facilitate trading AAPL stock options.

    What's a guy to do when he can't justify buying the latest/greatest, even if he can afford it?


  • Reply 11 of 21

    Other tests included less common codec R3D, and Red RAW files stored on an external drive, as well as shared storage over 10-Gigabit Ethernet. In every case, Altman said he was blown away by the results.

    R3d and Red(code) RAW files are the same thing.. and the Panavision Millennium DXL is just an accessorized RED with a slightly different color processing science on the back end.
    /FYI ;)

    And, shooting in 8k gives you better anti-aliasing without losing sharpness. Plus re-framing, stabilizing, and finally down-sampling for final output without digital sharpening and noise reduction. 8k is good.
    edited December 2017 welshdogchristophb
  • Reply 12 of 21
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,434member
    nhughes said:

    8K could apply in theaters, or cropping (as you suggest). But I can't imagine it will mean much for home use. Or even most pro users.

    Not necessarily... Android fans will soon begin demanding 8K displays on their Android phones and expect it to cost $299.  Just wait.
    nhugheswatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 21
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,434member

    "For me, if an equally powerful Mac Pro existed, I'd still choose this iMac Pro over it, because I love the all-in-one compact design and the way it sits in my edit suite," he said. "I can't wait to use the iMac Pro for genuine work and really put it through its paces. I'm slightly dizzied by its power, and the potential that power has for delivering amazing work."
    This is the key opinion that wannabe, self-appointed so-called "weekend professionals" continue to ignore.  Real professionals are not those that want a Mac Pro just because they can swap out internals.  They are people that specialize in their craft, and using computers as the tools they are, to be purchased, depreciated, and then replaced with a more modern alternative when their current one ceases to provide productivity.  They are a write-off.  Shops buy these workstations as plug-in profit generators.  They have zero desire crack open machines and replace bits and pieces.  FACT.

    I'm really curious what the new Mac Pro will be like and how it differentiates itself from the advantages of the iMac Pro.  

    As much as I am salivating at the thought of one day owning an iMac Pro, I literally can't justify the "need" of one for what I use it for.  It would be simply a "want".  It's simply too much power for what I'm using my late 2015 iMac for.  I still haven't utilized all the horsepower my current iMac has let alone what this iMac Pro beast is capable of.  However, I do look forward to all that horespower evolving down the line to more consumer-oriented machines.

    I think Apple is going through a renaissance period again with the desktop machines.  It's pretty exciting stuff to see.  I'm just waiting to see what a top-of-the-line iMac Pro will go for on Apple's configuration website when they go on sale in two days.  I shudder at the price tag.

    These things are going to sell like crazy.... and the iHaters and so-called "professionals" will continue to chime in saying how much cheaper they can build one with completely different components.
     

    edited December 2017 Bluntfastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 21
    BluntBlunt Posts: 222member
    sflocal said:
    These things are going to sell like crazy.... and the iHaters and so-called "professionals" will continue to chime in saying how much cheaper they can build one with completely different components.

    Great post. The so-called professionals don't know shit.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 21
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,654member

    And, shooting in 8k gives you better anti-aliasing without losing sharpness. Plus re-framing, stabilizing, and finally down-sampling for final output without digital sharpening and noise reduction. 8k is good.
    One could also shoot 8k I order to perform effects like zoom-ins etc. with final product being 1080. Ad agency creatives and production companies will have fun with this. You end up with a lot of frame to play with. 
    edited December 2017 watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 21
    Nice to see Apple getting ahead of the puck again. 8K today, 16K tomorrow.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 21
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,434member
    Blunt said:
    sflocal said:
    These things are going to sell like crazy.... and the iHaters and so-called "professionals" will continue to chime in saying how much cheaper they can build one with completely different components.

    Great post. The so-called professionals don't know shit.
    All the so-called know-it-all "professionals" will be found infesting MacRumors as usual.  It cracks me up reading all the misinformation they are spreading, criticizing/insulting the people and shops that are planning on buying this machine.  They even criticize the Brownlee YouTube video about his agreement that the configured price point is actually quite competitive for a workstation of this class.  

    Bunch of basement-dwelling punks.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 21
    I’m salivating but mainly just because I love Final Cut updates! Concerning 8k though, wasn’t the school of thought that this would be far beyond the perception of the human eye? I will save it I can see a big difference between 1080 and 4K but beyond that? Is the goal of 8K more about being able to crop in and ultimately saving at a 4K resolution?
    Cinema. This should be for Hollywood directors. I want it, but for other reason. I am sick of 60 fps in gaming.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 21
    thttht Posts: 3,063member
    welshdog said:

    And, shooting in 8k gives you better anti-aliasing without losing sharpness. Plus re-framing, stabilizing, and finally down-sampling for final output without digital sharpening and noise reduction. 8k is good.
    One could also shoot 8k I order to perform effects like zoom-ins etc. with final product being 1080. Ad agency creatives and production companies will have fun with this. You end up with a lot of frame to play with. 
    There may be not many applications for 8K monitors, but there are applications for 8K video. There are a lot of measurement applications involving analysis of video, and higher frame rate, higher resolutions are things that can definitely be used. So, software and hardware that can handle increasingly large video content is something that will be continually developed into the future. It’s not all about movies.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 21
    I’m salivating but mainly just because I love Final Cut updates! Concerning 8k though, wasn’t the school of thought that this would be far beyond the perception of the human eye? I will save it I can see a big difference between 1080 and 4K but beyond that? Is the goal of 8K more about being able to crop in and ultimately saving at a 4K resolution?

    Television screens are getting BIGGER.  8K is for 80+ screens that will be commonplace in the next few years. 4K is enough for the 50 inch screens we have today. But 8K is the future.  Then after that, we will need 32K video for our 20-foot wide screens - in American homes which have 20-foot wide walls.

    8K is needed professionally for movie theaters. It can then be downsized to 4K for consumers today. 4K is grainy on the huge screens of movie theaters.
Sign In or Register to comment.