Apple product managers address complains over Final Cut Pro X

2456712

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 221
    The upgrade price of the plug in to export OMFs is $200.



    New it is $500
  • Reply 22 of 221
    Quote:

    ...it recommends that professionals set their RED cameras to capture video in the QuickTime format, which Final Cut Pro X can import.



    Reds do not currently have this capability, the camera will generate QT proxies of the RAW camera files, but those are not the same thing as "video in the QT format".
  • Reply 23 of 221
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    That's true. It would require a third party component from AJA or Black Magic to convert RED files to QT.



    There's been plenty of rumor though that Apple is working with RED, Arri, Sony, Panasonic in building a new support structure for native video files.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by joe hedge View Post


    Reds do not currently have this capability, the camera will generate QT proxies of the RAW camera files, but those are not the same thing as "video in the QT format".



  • Reply 24 of 221
    aiwaz418aiwaz418 Posts: 21member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    That's true. It would require a third party component from AJA or Black Magic to convert RED files to QT.



    There's been plenty of rumor though that Apple is working with RED, Arri, Sony, Panasonic in building a new support structure for native video files.



    No, it just requires that users download the FREE RedCineX from the RED website to convert into numerous formats for ingestion into FCP. Of course, it is a faster process with the Red Rocket card, but the price of that is prohibitive to any but pros.
  • Reply 25 of 221
    aiwaz418aiwaz418 Posts: 21member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."



    A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.



    Final Cut Pro X is so totally *not* a "consumer" product in any way. Your just being ridiculous.



    Well, thanks for sharing your ignorance!



    This has nothing to do with tape (or little to do with it- tape is still a delivery requirement to many markets) and everything to do with features that are REQUIRED for deliverables within the professional film and television community.



    That's okay, though, don't worry about it - it's not a community in which you will ever dwell with your juvenile attitude.
  • Reply 26 of 221
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Well depending on your hardware that could be an excruciating slow way to do it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aiwaz418 View Post


    No, it just requires that users download the FREE RedCineX from the RED website to convert into numerous formats for ingestion into FCP. Of course, it is a faster process with the Red Rocket card, but the price of that is prohibitive to any but pros.



  • Reply 27 of 221
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    That's true. It would require a third party component from AJA or Black Magic to convert RED files to QT.



    Or just transcode the RAW camera files after they've been downloaded from the camera with Red's own software, or work natively with the RAW's in editorial on a souped-up MacPro, either of which are the pre-FCP X standard workflows. I have a feeling that working with Red RAW files will continue to be more hardware-dependent than software-dependent, due to the processing horsepower required for transcoding, and the graphics horsepower required for editing RAW camera files.
  • Reply 28 of 221
    addicted44addicted44 Posts: 826member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur View Post


    Without multi-camera editing, it's useless to me. I'll wait.



    Thank you. I don't understand why folks can't display this basic common sense?



    The alternative would have been for Apple to wait till they had multi-camera editing ready, and then release. You would have been in no different situation at all (waiting till multi-camera editing was ready) and in the meanwhile those who did not need it, would have had to wait longer.



    Its a complete rewrite. Why is anyone shocked there are missing features?
  • Reply 29 of 221
    technotechno Posts: 734member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aiwaz418 View Post


    Well, thanks for sharing your ignorance!



    This has nothing to do with tape (or little to do with it- tape is still a delivery requirement to many markets) and everything to do with features that are REQUIRED for deliverables within the professional film and television community.



    That's okay, though, don't worry about it - it's not a community in which you will ever dwell with your juvenile attitude.



    Why do you have to be so mean? It is fine to disagree with people in here, but no need to insult.
  • Reply 30 of 221
    aiwaz418aiwaz418 Posts: 21member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by techno View Post


    Why do you have to be so mean? It is fine to disagree with people in here, but no need to insult.



    Sorry, did you read the post I quoted?



    THAT was insulting.
  • Reply 31 of 221
    maccherrymaccherry Posts: 924member
    If you don't like It then program you own effing editing software.

    Oh, I thought so. Be quiet.
  • Reply 32 of 221
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    From a legacy standpoint of support tape still does live on. But there is increasing less reason for it to live on. I cannot think of any new camera over the last couple of years that is tape based.



    Looking at Steve Jobs skating towards to puck analogy. Everything is clearly moving away from tape. I suppose it can be up for argument how quickly things are moving away from tape.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aiwaz418 View Post


    This has nothing to do with tape (or little to do with it- tape is still a delivery requirement to many markets) and everything to do with features that are REQUIRED for deliverables within the professional film and television community.



  • Reply 33 of 221
    joseph ljoseph l Posts: 197member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maccherry View Post


    if you don't like it then program you own effing editing software.

    Oh, i thought so. Be quiet.



    +1





    ........................................
  • Reply 34 of 221
    Ever since Apple discontinued the Xserve (and before that Xserve RAID) its become clear that apple are pulling out of the professional market. There may be a Mac Pro refresh coming up but I'm betting it will be the last one, they will tell us the iMac does everything that the Mac Pro can do, Then aperture will get a remake from the ground up that makes it useless for pro's but great for hobbyists.



    Fair enough apple is in business to make money, and the money is clearly in the consumer market at the moment, its just such a shame that we wont be able to use Apple products for high end work in the future
  • Reply 35 of 221
    jerseymacjerseymac Posts: 408member
    Cripes. This thread is on it's way to madness. I thought it might be safe to read the only non iOS thread in many moons and get some insight in whether I, a non professional, should try this thing.



    Instead we have the usual rudeness and bickering.



    Oh well, back to exile. I'll peek in when the new Mac Pro's come out. Maybe we can fight about Blu Ray?
  • Reply 36 of 221
    FCPX is NOT ready for a professional workflow. Maybe in a year. you have to understand that this is problematic for those of us that often purchase machines for a single job. A new machine outfitted with FCPX will not fit into our workflow the same as FCP7. Therefore we have to rethink our workflow potential. Tha'ts the only problem. If i had to buy 5 offline edit suites tomorrow they probably would be AMC suites and not FCPX suites.



    I will say it again FCPX is not ready for prime-time even in a tapeless workflow. I just cut a comedy using RED proxies. I got the EDL from the director, it was cut, approved and then had to be sent to the Ptools engineer (OMF), the colorist XML (who happens to not be working in color) and of course come back as a 4K file to be mastered to multiple formats including, Digital Delivery, film and tape. FCPX would be a nightmare to integrate into the workflow.



    Again I have to remind some of you (because you are too young? really?) there is not a feature in existence that is finished in FCP. Not one. FCPX is not ready because it cannot talk to other software yet. Even when it is ready, it'll be like FCP7 today. It'll get used for offline edits and finished elsewhere.That's all FCP was ever for. That and youtube home movies and maybe bad/ cheap cable programing and a few indie movies no one will ever hear of.



    Apple should have realized that FCP is an offline tool and it's hugely important that work going in MUST come out in a format other FINISHING programs can understand. It would be like giving your neg cutter in the valley a hard boiled egg and calling it an EDL. It doesn't jive.



    I have no addiction to tape personally, (I honestly haven't shot tape in 3 or four years) but allot of people have shot allot of footage on tape. That footage is constantly being recycled, re-edited, re-used etc etc. There was a 30 year investment in tape and you can't just throw it away. It's bad accounting.



    Should we all stop using film too because it's old? C'mon!. Allot of people are still shooting and mastering to film as well. Do you shit on the music artists that choose to record their albums to tape as well? Obviously you know nothing about technology, artistic expression and what the various tools allow you to express or you're just a putz.





    Sure next year things will be different, everything is always different in a year, but honestly two questions remain...



    Does Apple even care to continue with their professional software and features... ( I personally don't see why they would. seems a waste of time a and a vanity effort to me)



    If so, How quickly? Apple should speak up to some degree. They haven't in the past, but this is a major overhaul which none of us expected. A timeline of features would be nice or to know if Apple even wants to bother.



    Ya know people on AI have said I'm an arrogant prick, but your comments actually surprised and disappointed me. Obviously you have some issues given your attempt at dismissing people because of their age and it only demonstrates that you are in fact the one who feel threatened. I hadn't seen this side of you in your comments. You made the first member of my ignore list. For the record I'm 35 and have no fear about that. I'm just arriving at the age where I am respected and paid for that respect. Therefore, I have no problem rudely inquiring "How old are you asshole?"



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."



    A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.



    Final Cut Pro X is so totally *not* a "consumer" product in any way. Your just being ridiculous.



    Anyone with half a brain would use Avid when it was appropriate. FCP is more or less an offline solution with no hardware support. You are simply mistaken if you think FCP (in whatever form) on a $5k mac can hold it's ground against a full blown Avid suite. In my own self interest I'll only encourage you to stick to your guns





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    LOL, I agree.



    You especially reveal your age if you say "I wanted to go back to Avid anyway".



  • Reply 37 of 221
    akhomerunakhomerun Posts: 386member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aiwaz418 View Post


    Sorry, did you read the post I quoted?



    THAT was insulting.



    yeah, but you still insulted back, and calling someone juvenile just because they aren't a professional video editor, or are somehow below your level? please. two wrongs don't make a right.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aiwaz418


    everything to do with features that are REQUIRED for deliverables within the professional film and television community.



    Look at all those big words you used!



    After consulting with the Apple project manager's, the Time's David Pogue concluded that "Apple has followed the typical Apple sequence" with Final Cut Pro X, which is to "(1) throw out something that?s popular and comfortable but increasingly ancient, (2) replace it with something that?s slick and modern and forward-looking and incomplete, (3) spend another year finishing it up, restoring missing pieces."



    Sums it all up perfectly. If you really miss the features, nobody's forcing you to buy. Apple will soon restore the ones that are important to people. They really do well in listening to feature requests.
  • Reply 38 of 221
    jasenj1jasenj1 Posts: 922member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by edm81363 View Post


    Your article just restates David Pogues article. Richard Harrington has posted a full and thoughtful reply;



    http://www.richardharringtonblog.com...x_response.php



    Why would Apple's Product Managers interact with a non-editor to defend this product? Did he ask them how it compares to Premiere Pro, Media Composer or Vegas?



    I have a hard time seeing Stephen Bayes defending this release...



    I read the above article and share the nervousness and discontent about the new version. It's not so much that the new version is radically new, but Apple appears to be dropping (or redirecting) all information and references to the previous version. It's fine to have a new version, but in the Pro world you need to support old stuff for a while while people transition to the new stuff and the new stuff gets past 1.0 issues.



    If I were an editor faced with transitioning to FCP X with no guarantee that some/many of the features I relied on would be restored, I'd seriously be looking at the competition.



    - Jasen.
  • Reply 39 of 221
    jersey, you should try it. FCPX seems like a great program built on a great engine and as long as you don't need certain standing features, you'll be fine and enjoy it allot from what I can tell. Ignore the bickering. We're just a vocal crowd.





    We could start fighting about Bluray now though.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post


    Cripes. This thread is on it's way to madness. I thought it might be safe to read the only non iOS thread in many moons and get some insight in whether I, a non professional, should try this thing.



    Instead we have the usual rudeness and bickering.



    Oh well, back to exile. I'll peek in when the new Mac Pro's come out. Maybe we can fight about Blu Ray?



  • Reply 40 of 221
    dnlzchdnlzch Posts: 1member
    It imports older IMovie projects, but not older Final Cut projects. Like it or not, that kind of makes it IMovie Pro.
Sign In or Register to comment.