Apple posts Final Cut Pro X FAQ: FCP7 will work with Lion, import not possible

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 134
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by IronHeadSlim View Post


    Did you just wake up from a coma?



    Amazing eh?
  • Reply 82 of 134
    delanydelany Posts: 51member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post


    >> The CHANGES to workflow/production are going to be staggering once those types of capabilities become ubiquitous -- kind of like when we were first able to easily search for things on our hard drive. But it takes a LOT of infrastructure to make this work;

    Face Recognition

    Speech to Text that works

    Voice recognition that identifies the speaker.

    XML and a text-based file system to allow these different features to communicate.

    Some sort of "cloud" infrastructure that allows editing, reviewing and grabbing files to be transparent.

    True multi-threaded multi-core support that allows for networked computers to "pitch in" without getting in the way of dedicated work (Grand Central),

    All image and sound manipulations to be processed in optimized engines that can take advantage of graphic cards or OTHER computing power (Open GL, Open GL, etc.)



    This post is interesting and certainly makes a good case for the direction FCX is heading.



    My problem with all this, though, is that it all smells a little too much like the sort of stuff that sent Microsoft into a tailspin - the annoying autocorrect features and 'it looks like you're writing a **** - do you want me to format it for you' stuff that is great in theory but requires intelligent technology to advance significantly before it actually works.



    The difference is that in Microsoft's case, the desire to progress at all costs led to terrible bloat. They added the annoying 'innovative' suff on top of the old, reliable functionality. Apple, above all, hates bloat, so they're cutting instead. And, though techology has moved on, the fact remains that intelligent computing has a long way to go before it's up to the task of second guessing humans. And that's going to be a problem, because, in Apple's case, the old, reliable stuff isn't there any more.



    What worries me is that FCX is not the only instance of Apple heading in this direction. The latest version of XCode has similar issues and an equally high percentage of detractors in the relevant community. They have removed or made common features difficult to access while adding in 'intelligent' features that really don't work. These are not things the user just needs to get used to - the new version of XCode has been out for months and is simply not as usable as the previous version. The same could be said for the direction the last iPhoto release went in.



    What is more, even if you ignore the 'intelligent' aspect of Apple's recent software, I'm detecting that Apple is making more silly mistakes even in it's general interface design. There are some blatently silly design decisions in XCode (tiny icons for frequently used features, immovable frames that are narrow where they should be wide) and iPhoto (having to enter 'edit' mode to zoom into an image). What's more, they are clearly streatched thin in major software categories - iWork has been overdue for an update for a year now.



    All this adds up to an Apple that looks very good in their main money generating areas - iOS essentially - but cracks are definitely beginning to show elsewhere. I no longer have faith that Apple sees the best path for their professional and perhaps even their more general software.



    And that matters more than it might seem, because, for all their great design and marketing savvy, at the core of the Apple brand are cool people doing creative things. People who other people aspire to be. If Apple gives them the middle finger, it wont be an immediate problem, but it will lead to a slow but inevitable errosion in the Apple brand image. One that no amount of clever marketing will be able to disguise.
  • Reply 83 of 134
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Swift View Post


    My perspective on that is, the revolution is going on whether you get to edit a new series about the Kardashians or not. Web streaming video, file video, is the new reality. Broadcast TV, cable, and all the reasons that industry was once a 'license to print money,' are a stale industry.



    I'm surprised the TV industry didn't catch on sooner. With web streaming, the content providers have much more control over what they can force users to watch. For example, no more recording shows for offline viewing. And no more skipping of commercials. If the browser reloads the page, then the user gets to watch even more commercials before he can return to what he was watching before. If the user tries to rewind or fast forward, the studio can either prevent skipping or force users to watch more commercials first. If the user pauses the video, the studio can replace the still frame with ads and banners. If users have slower internet connections, it just means they will spend more time viewing the commercials.
  • Reply 84 of 134
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    "Instead, assume that there are many, many smart people on the team responsible for this product, people who have likely been obsessing over it for many years. Assume that there is a roadmap many years long in either direction. Assume that at least most of the backlash over the release of Final Cut Pro X was anticipated, and that Apple probably believes quite firmly they have in mind the best interests not only of the editors who use their software, but also of the medium as a whole. It’s not hyperbole to say that Apple writes history with their products. So let’s take it as read that some interesting thought has gone into this process."



    "I will speculate that Final Cut Pro has just ceased to be about the craft of editing because Apple has little interest in the craft of editing. I will argue that Apple has a giant interest in the craft of distributing, of publishing. This is where it aims to enable an entirely new market of content built on its new infrastructure. YouTube is a distribution platform that has changed the world by changing the face of media by changing the mechanisms for distribution. Apple aims to do the same by positioning itself as the de facto tool for content generation and distribution, content which will in turn benefit its distribution method for external content. Apple created iTunes first as a tool for collecting one’s “own” media, and THEN evolved into a platform for distributing external media (very valuable content) through the store. With Final Cut Pro X, Apple aims to establish a platform through which users can generate content internally and therefore become even more accustomed/adaptable to the mechanisms of media consumption."



    “Final Cut Pro: The New Class”
  • Reply 85 of 134
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by delany View Post


    This post is interesting and certainly makes a good case for the direction FCX is heading.



    My problem with all this, though, is that it all smells a little too much like the sort of stuff that sent Microsoft into a tailspin - the annoying autocorrect features and 'it looks like you're writing a **** - do you want me to format it for you' stuff that is great in theory but requires intelligent technology to advance significantly before it actually works.



    So far, with FCPX, Apple seems to be giving several options when importing media:

    1) No Analysis and no Autocorrection

    2) Analysis and Autocorrection of some things (background noise and hum removal) this seems to work well

    3) Analyze and do nothing.



    At anytime you can Analyze any clips that haven't been analyzed, Then apply or remove the optional corrections.



    All in all it seems flexible and capable!



    ...then this little paperclip pops up...



    Quote:

    The difference is that in Microsoft's case, the desire to progress at all costs led to terrible bloat. They added the annoying 'innovative' suff on top of the old, reliable functionality. Apple, above all, hates bloat, so they're cutting instead. And, though techology has moved on, the fact remains that intelligent computing has a long way to go before it's up to the task of second guessing humans. And that's going to be a problem, because, in Apple's case, the old, reliable stuff isn't there any more.



    What worries me is that FCX is not the only instance of Apple heading in this direction. The latest version of XCode has similar issues and an equally high percentage of detractors in the relevant community. They have removed or made common features difficult to access while adding in 'intelligent' features that really don't work. These are not things the user just needs to get used to - the new version of XCode has been out for months and is simply not as usable as the previous version. The same could be said for the direction the last iPhoto release went in.



    What is more, even if you ignore the 'intelligent' aspect of Apple's recent software, I'm detecting that Apple is making more silly mistakes even in it's general interface design. There are some blatently silly design decisions in XCode (tiny icons for frequently used features, immovable frames that are narrow where they should be wide) and iPhoto (having to enter 'edit' mode to zoom into an image). What's more, they are clearly streatched thin in major software categories - iWork has been overdue for an update for a year now.



    All this adds up to an Apple that looks very good in their main money generating areas - iOS essentially - but cracks are definitely beginning to show elsewhere. I no longer have faith that Apple sees the best path for their professional and perhaps even their more general software.



    And that matters more than it might seem, because, for all their great design and marketing savvy, at the core of the Apple brand are cool people doing creative things. People who other people aspire to be. If Apple gives them the middle finger, it wont be an immediate problem, but it will lead to a slow but inevitable errosion in the Apple brand image. One that no amount of clever marketing will be able to disguise.



    I agree some of the interface decisions in things like XCode 4 and Pages are head scratchers.



    I suspect that Apple sees a time when multi touch and stylus will see a lot more use on devices attached to the desktop machines -- and are experimenting to see what works.



    In FCPX, for example there are some controls that are so small that you can hardly see them without zooming in, which, thankfully, is easy. Other things like the controls for adjusting a shape mask are so big that you could do it with a toe or an elbow.
  • Reply 86 of 134
    onhkaonhka Posts: 1,025member
    It amazes me from such the overwhelming positive response to the Final Cut Pro X keynote at NAB that none of the attendees, and I would assume many were professionals, have yet to express the disdain that is shown here.



    As far as I can tell only a couple of attendees have published any reviews after trying the product to date and both were quite favorable.



    Certainly, because of anonymity, anyone can declare that they are a professional. But how anybody, even the best in the business, could declare such overt opinions not having spent a second trying the software is beyond me. And for those that did, making a judgement call even after a couple of hours is equally mindboggling.



    Obviously, at least to me, most here are simply trolling. As evidenced, even after being corrected, they continue to propagate their lies.



    Again, I challenge anyone who declares otherwise to tell the likes of David Leitner that his experience on Final Cut Pro X is not worthy of consideration. For you so-called professionals who profess to have tried FCPX publish your findings. But you'll have to identify yourselves. Otherwise, they are not worth a plug nickel.



    * http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/new...first-musings/
  • Reply 87 of 134
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Onhka View Post


    It amazes me from such the overwhelming positive response to the Final Cut Pro X keynote at NAB that none of the attendees, and I would assume many were professionals, have yet to express the disdain that is shown here.



    As far as I can tell only a couple of attendees have published any reviews after trying the product to date and both were quite favorable.



    Certainly, because of anonymity, anyone can declare that they are a professional. But how anybody, even the best in the business, could declare such overt opinions not having spent a second trying the software is beyond me. And for those that did, making a judgement call even after a couple of hours is equally mindboggling.



    Obviously, at least to me, most here are simply trolling. As evidenced, even after being corrected, they continue to propagate their lies.



    Again, I challenge anyone who declares otherwise to tell the likes of David Leitner that his experience on Final Cut Pro X is not worthy of consideration. For you so-called professionals who profess to have tried FCPX publish your findings. But you'll have to identify yourselves. Otherwise, they are not worth a plug nickel.



    * http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/new...first-musings/



    Oddly, I can't find the link... But there was video of a panel discussion with about 10 Pos at the FCPUG Supermeet, a day before the Apple presos.



    Several of the pros (likely saw the early pre-announce at Apple HQ) were highly critical of FCPX and specifically pointed out things FCPX couldn't do and that FCPX would not fit into the workflow for many pros.



    Others were totally impressed and said the could begin using it immedistely.



    Most saw it as an incomplete product, but that it defined the future of video editing and srory-telling.



    I suspect they (the panel) were fairly representative of the opinions/feelings that we see expressed here and on other blogs/forums.
  • Reply 88 of 134
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post


    To give some perspective for everyone, how well did adobe and avid translation to 64 bit? Their feature upgrade time line etc? Just curious, I have no idea.



    Also, could you expand on 'comprehensive architecture'? What is missing from the 'core architecture' that they did not at least attempt to address in their fax? Again curious, I'm not a editor, just trying to understand.





    Avid DS has been 64 bit since 2007. What a wonderful system. There was no real transition to speak of.



    Media composer V5.5 is said to be the last version of Avid in 32 bit.
  • Reply 89 of 134
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    "I will speculate that Final Cut Pro has just ceased to be about the craft of editing because Apple has little interest in the craft of editing. I will argue that Apple has a giant interest in the craft of distributing, of publishing. This is where it aims to enable an entirely new market of content built on its new infrastructure. YouTube is a distribution platform that has changed the world by changing the face of media by changing the mechanisms for distribution. Apple aims to do the same by positioning itself as the de facto tool for content generation and distribution, content which will in turn benefit its distribution method for external content. Apple created iTunes first as a tool for collecting one?s ?own? media, and THEN evolved into a platform for distributing external media (very valuable content) through the store. With Final Cut Pro X, Apple aims to establish a platform through which users can generate content internally and therefore become even more accustomed/adaptable to the mechanisms of media consumption."



    ?Final Cut Pro: The New Class?



    This is a very smart piece you link to. Gruber also linked to it. Worth reading the whole thing. It implies that the future of moving picture will be in everybody's hands now, not a centralized entertainment industry. FCP X is designed for the masses -- i think that is the implication. He seems to be saying that Apple wants to sell content from the masses to the masses. Could they be thinking of fodder for their Apple TV set?



    I have no problem with all this, but I need real tracks on a real timeline. At least I'm pretty sure I do, haven't tried X's alternative metaphor because, interestingly, it is not in the Apple store yet. Are they holding it back for some reason?
  • Reply 90 of 134
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


    This is a very smart piece you link to. Gruber also linked to it. Worth reading the whole thing. It implies that the future of moving picture will be in everybody's hands now, not a centralized entertainment industry. FCP X is designed for the masses -- i think that is the implication. He seems to be saying that Apple wants to sell content from the masses to the masses. Could they be thinking of fodder for their Apple TV set?



    I have no problem with all this, but I need real tracks on a real timeline. At least I'm pretty sure I do, haven't tried X's alternative metaphor because, interestingly, it is not in the Apple store yet. Are they holding it back for some reason?



    I think he's right at the core. What we've seen recently with technologies like Blu-ray is a lack of consideration for smaller publishing houses. When Steve said it was a "...bag of hurt" he wasn't just talking about the implementation into computer but the whole ideology behind it.



    Sure we got HD video but we also got a format with such a preponderance of DRM it actually against licensing mandates to ship a disc without DRM.



    With the network (Internet) become more pervasive it yields more connected homes which means that the playback of digital files need not be locked tight on a disc behind licensing/extortion schemes.



    Final Cut Pro X eschews the old in favor of file based capture, digital export to files that can be downloaded or streamed and a move away from older tape based ideology.



    It's about time.
  • Reply 91 of 134
    guinnessguinness Posts: 473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    I think he's right at the core. What we've seen recently with technologies like Blu-ray is a lack of consideration for smaller publishing houses. When Steve said it was a "...bag of hurt" he wasn't just talking about the implementation into computer but the whole ideology behind it.



    Sure we got HD video but we also got a format with such a preponderance of DRM it actually against licensing mandates to ship a disc without DRM.



    With the network (Internet) become more pervasive it yields more connected homes which means that the playback of digital files need not be locked tight on a disc behind licensing/extortion schemes.



    Final Cut Pro X eschews the old in favor of file based capture, digital export to files that can be downloaded or streamed and a move away from older tape based ideology.



    It's about time.



    DRM will always exist in some form, unless you get a pirated copy. It's only a bag of hurt when it doesn't benefit Apple, or at least more heavily in their odds.



    Example, the purchased Tv shows I have in iTunes I can't open in anything other than iTunes. Keeps it locked to Apple's ecosystem, not without cracking it somehow (which is probably no different than MS' Marketplace for example, it's not any better either). Still locked like lots of other media.
  • Reply 92 of 134
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    What I object to are licensing terms like those that Sony foisted upon people that

    states I "must" use DRM if I wish to publish on Blu-ray.



    I have to choice to download video content from multiple providers with neither being

    the defacto standard so the lock in is a bit more palatable IMO than telling someone that

    wants to deliver a Blu-ray disc of of corporate promotional items or whatever getting told

    they have to lock down their disc.



    I have a Blu-ray player but frankly I hope it's the last optical format I have to put up with and I wouldn't care if it never used another Sony product.
  • Reply 93 of 134
    lowededwookielowededwookie Posts: 1,143member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by IronHeadSlim View Post


    There was no need for the last line of the first post. He had already made his point.



    I am insulting everyone who adds ad hominem attacks that make no point.



    Like yours?
  • Reply 94 of 134
    A little off-topic and a newbie question to be sure, but what is the best software I can use to work with vob files? I would like to import them without transcoding (or at least transcoding without losing quality) and then edit them. Can I use FCP X for it, or some other progam?
  • Reply 95 of 134
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by delany View Post


    This post is interesting and certainly makes a good case for the direction FCX is heading.



    (clipped but also good stuff!)

    And that matters more than it might seem, because, for all their great design and marketing savvy, at the core of the Apple brand are cool people doing creative things. People who other people aspire to be. If Apple gives them the middle finger, it wont be an immediate problem, but it will lead to a slow but inevitable errosion in the Apple brand image. One that no amount of clever marketing will be able to disguise.



    ^^^ Nice take on the current Apple software conundrum ^^^



    I'm also seeing some odd choices by Apple in re: their very own HUD guidelines not being honored.



    Usability first for example. It is well known by Apple even, that color added to shapes, as with icons, helps users differentiate and choose faster. It is why logos and corporate image branding is such a demanding art (my 1st profession actually).



    Then why does Apple pull color out of it's most used application, iTunes? I personally have no problem with it, but many others do.



    Naturally nobody wants the cheesiness of Microsoft or personalized Android screens... but a little color goes a long way.



    Stranger yet is when Apple does go the "chee-wiz" route and adds faux leather and torn pages to calender, address book, etc... and you go, "WTF"?



    Microscopic interface buttons and text is also starting to where thin.



    Whatever did happen to resolution independence? It was there at one time, waiting to be turned on similar to XML in/output in FCPX (whoo... got back on topic with that one ).



    The above notes do pertain to FCPX, because you do have to ask why Apple doesn't give the "option" of having different views. Stacked view, then with a click, traditional track line. Imagine OSX if we could only view files in CoverFlow? While nice, there are times list, icon, or column view are the better "choice".



    Choice. An all encompassing word. Maybe better would be a selective word like alternative. At the moment regardless of noun, it appears at Apple there are the pre-qualifying adjectives, "limited" or "exclusive" to deal with within their software offerings. Or not...?



    PS: I WILL find a way to change that faux-leather look!!!!
  • Reply 96 of 134
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by steveH View Post


    Out here, the mini stores don't have any on display, the full-size stores all do.



    Well I haven't seen one in the big european stores at least...
  • Reply 97 of 134
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    I think that people are wasting their time signing any petition. Apple knows fully well what it is doing and I'm sure they were aware of some backlash coming. They made their strategic decision and I doubt that they will budge.



    Nature, the free market and capitalism will solve any problems. Those people who don't like the new Final Cut Pro X or find it unusable will migrate towards something else and those people who like the new Final Cut Pro X will use it.



    I'm don't really do video, I'm more into music. If Apple comes out with a new Logic that is completely different, I will simply have to choose if I will continue using it or if I will move to something else. If a new Logic version ends up looking more like Garageband and it is targeted more towards talentless people uploading their crappy, amateurish music on youtube, then I will probably move to something else.



    I think you miss the point about migration. I also do music but with DP7, I recently had to abandon tc electronic because of all theie shenanigans, it took me months. I held off moving to logic for similar reasons. A professional studio is only going to make these decisions on a very large time scale so they don't chop and change - its a huge waste of man hours for a start and of no added value. Hence loyalty in music and video software at least at the high end is part of the course.



    Think of these video guys with huge archives of huge files - it doesn't bare thinking about. This reminds me of office 2007 not being able to save as the 95 version or whatever but even that could OPEN the older docs. Just times that by GB files with no way to migrate. Fantastic, way to go apple.



    ps I am a big apple fan normally.
  • Reply 98 of 134
    shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post


    How would option 2 have helped you? The 'pros' would all still be up in arms.



    Point I was making is that Apple positioned FCPX as a the next version of FCP7 when clearly it's not. It's an entirely new product. Even with all the upgrades they are promising you still won't be able to import your FCP7 files into FCPX. Pro users can't just switch like that. They need an upgrade path, time to transition, etc. Whatever they call it it's not FCP as we know it.



    Apple always tries to hide the bad news, hope nobody will make too much of a fuss. Well it backfired this time. I maintain that they should have said "We are retiring FCP with version 7, we'll keep supporting it and bug fixing for the next x years, in the meantime here's our new product xxx (whatever they call it). It's the future. When you finished all your current projects why not move across in your own time".
  • Reply 99 of 134
    onhkaonhka Posts: 1,025member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Oddly, I can't find the link... But there was video of a panel discussion with about 10 Pos at the FCPUG Supermeet, a day before the Apple presos.



    Several of the pros (likely saw the early pre-announce at Apple HQ) were highly critical of FCPX and specifically pointed out things FCPX couldn't do and that FCPX would not fit into the workflow for many pros.



    Others were totally impressed and said the could begin using it immedistely.



    Most saw it as an incomplete product, but that it defined the future of video editing and srory-telling.



    I suspect they (the panel) were fairly representative of the opinions/feelings that we see expressed here and on other blogs/forums.



    Try this link. http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/new...first-musings/



    Could you supply the link to the video of the panel discussion?



    Interesting that you, "…suspect they (the panel) were fairly representative of the opinions/feelings that we see expressed here and on other blogs/forums," even before the product was available or even shown?
  • Reply 100 of 134
    noirdesirnoirdesir Posts: 1,027member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


    This is a very smart piece you link to. Gruber also linked to it. Worth reading the whole thing. It implies that the future of moving picture will be in everybody's hands now, not a centralized entertainment industry. FCP X is designed for the masses -- i think that is the implication. He seems to be saying that Apple wants to sell content from the masses to the masses. Could they be thinking of fodder for their Apple TV set?



    I think this a smart guy trying make sense of it all but Garageband has not revolutionised the distribution of music (though it might have helped some beginners to start producing music and thus might have kickstarted some 'professional' careers, with professional meaning people gaining an audience, paying or non-paying).



    I think Apple simply overshot, they went into the right direction but went too far (for the time being, hopefully reality catches up to them).
Sign In or Register to comment.