- Last Active
I wonder if the same good souls who confessed that the 2013 Mac Pro was a fail for high end users, could be induced to apply the same thought to FCP X. I can't use a product where I can't lock tracks or timeline content to stop it sliding like jello. And I still can't send a presentable embedded AAF to a ProTools session that is anything like what a sound mixer might recognise. Sorry to harp on about this for 5 years, but yesterday I had to get content from DaVinci to Motion for a VFX job (am I the only person still using it for motion tracking fixes?) and the path was an XML to FCP7, "Send to Motion..." via Motion 4, then open that project in Motion 5 - won't even look at a raw XML, and even if I'd started in FCP X (which I wouldn't have, because this is on the back of a grade) I couldn't have done this because there's no way to Motion from FCP X.
Both Motion and FCP are now start-to-finish tools - minus decent audio mixing. Little wonder our facility does more business from Avid, Adobe and FCP 7 sources than FCP X.
Having said that, getting a project into Resolve is a very well developed path - if anyone used FCP X for projects they didn't completely finish in some fashion on their laptop.
hentaiboy said:And here I was hoping that my (big four) Australian bank had caved in. Guess I'll just have to transfer my life savings to Firefighters Mutual Bank
Let's be clear on this Daniel, chatting to a Final Cut Pro user editing 5K H.264 does NOT constitute high end validation of the Mac platform. FCP X is optimised for current machinery, sure. It's the show pony for these machines.
But I'm ordering a projector worth $65K, I have a DaVinci panel that cost $30K, and my only-for-TV monitor was $12K from Flanders. My CPU/GPU combo will cost $10K+ if it's a new Mac Pro, and that's fine. But I want TB 3, this year's silicon, better-than-OpenCL graphics processing and the ability to chain stuff tidily in a rack box. Moving forward, that's clearly not about adding Nvidia 1080 cards into a 16-lane Cubix box on a 5,1 12-core - but until the Mac Pro does better, that's what I'll stick with, because a naked Mac Pro 2016 doesn't warrant the reinvestment - in new interfaces and limited GPU power.
Seriously, there's SuperMicro kit I could use running Arch that would eat a Mac on the things that matter (no, not nodes full of blurs, but temporal and spatial NR) but I'm a Mac guy. I like doing Mac things. Limiting the upper definition of "pro" users to FCP X speed cutters is to miss the point entirely.
9secondkox2 said:All Apple needed to do was offer a MacBook Pro with 32 GB of RAM.
And theyd fly fly off the preorder shelves.
But instead we we get a stupid choice forced upon us with no option to choose one over the other.
A quiet update ASAP with 32 GB BTO option or as a standard option would fix this.
The sooner the better. Next month would be great.