-
At this point I wish Apple would sell off “Pro” apps
-
I have to agree that a re-write was/is called for.
They are specifically sexing up snow leopard to run 64 bit apps to take advantage of multiple processors. as in the ones that come in the macpro…which we all buy for FCP.
They have, in fact it was Mr. Jobs himself, indicated that they want developers to leave carbon behind and move to cocoa. 64 bit apps must be written in cocoa.
It’s the reason why Adobe products are still not 64 bit in Mac, but they are in PC.
It stands to reason that they should, IMO, update their most power hungry apps to take advantage of their own move to 64bit.
I gotta say, I’m disappointed.
G5 2.5 Dual PPC
4Gigs Ram
FCS2
Leopard -
[Paul Harb] “didnt see anything about it taking advantage of my multicore mac”
Have a look to the “Prores White Papers”.
The tests shows that the Snow Leopard Pre-release lets FC7 use 8 cores.
rafael -
One thing I am bitterly disappointed about is the lack of a real search function within FCP. It’s already there in Soundtrack and Motion so why it hasn’t made it into FCP is anyone’s guess.
A search field in the browser, so you can search footage and effects quickly and easily. Create smart bins to take a lot of leg work out of project management. Who wouldn’t have found it useful to have bins automatically created for images, for the last import you made, for everything that was used in a particular sequence? That would be an incredible improvement. I mean the functionality is in the finder, why can’t it find it’s way into the file management of FCP?
The way I look at it, this is a point release, and anybody hoping for a re-write after snow leopard is kidding themselves I think, this is it for the next two years at least and Apple have left a hell of a lot out that really should be there. It is not sour grapes to ask that they provide a compelling solution rather than cursory upgrade, that labels bug fixes as features (I mean come on saying “hey media manager now works like it’s supposed to” is not a feature)
Nope, count me among the very disappointed, we have every right to expect a lot more from Apple, this is still an expensive software suite regardless of the value that it gives, and the last two updates are not enough. They are neglecting a very important market and it’s just not good enough because we know they can do a lot better than this. FCS as it stands is fragmented and uneven, it needed a big overhaul and we didn’t get it.
-
Hi guys,
I too was really shocked by the lack of development (it has been two long years!), and my guess is Paul is right, it has to do with resources spent on iPhone… a great pity.
I had jumped from CS2>FCS2 and was very pleased at the time, but the idea of, for example, enduring another two years of FCP’s absolutely horrendous keyframe editor leaves me feeling rather sad.
Mark.
-
[Paul Harb] “Media Manager, a trim mode that actually is worth using”
I’ve offlined and onlined dozens of shows, including 35mm film, using FCP. It’s my experience that the weak point in FCP’s media management is largely the user.
Could it be easier? Yes. Could it be more intuitive? Yes.
But if the material is properly logged to begin with, the offline to online works. If all of my reels are named “001” and all of my media files are named “Untitled”, well, that’s not the fault of Apple’s programmers.
For my dollar trimming in FCP’s timeline has always beat Avid’s trim window. And I don’t know why anyone would use FCP’s trim window, when you can trim dynamically in FCP’s timeline. Perhaps that just a matter of taste.
[Paul Harb] “It has become painfully obvious that Apple doesnt care too much about professional editors in contrast to iPhones, iPods, and iTunes.”
Apple makes most of it’s money on just those products. They will ignore them at the peril of perishing as a company. The fact that they seem to find time to still make pro apps, pro workstations and servers is a testament to their commitment to those markets, even though they don’t bring in that much profit.
Look at IBM. When the pro workstations & laptops didn’t bring in enough profit, they spun the business off to concentrate on the things that do bring in big profits. Look at Compaq. They’re now a division of HP because they couldn’t earn enough profits to keep afloat.
If iPods subsidize the development of FCP, I’m all for Apple putting those out front!
Arnie
Post production is not an afterthought!
https://www.arniepix.com/ -
The problems I encountered with Media Manager were always due to the clips in the timeline being modified, specifically speed changes. If I had one clip like that I’d end up getting a mangled timeline. The thing is, I haven’t used or even needed to use Media Manager since FCP4. Every project is captured at native resolution, edited that way, and unless there are major color correction issues, we give the dub house a QuickTime file in the native resolution to bring down to broadcast legal levels and dubbed to tape. This wouldn’t work for everyone right now, but with new ProRes codecs coming out, bigger, faster drives getting cheaper and easier to transport, there’s quickly going to be no need to “media manage” your footage in the near future. Capture it once to a drive and it lives there. You’ll just pop the drive out and take it to someone to color correct, or take a clone to the dub-house to go directly to tape.
Seems to me like Apple is doing the same thing they always do, and that’s force us to look to the future. Is it annoying as hell? F****ng-A it is, but it’s also a good swift kick in the balls to keep us moving forward instead of stagnating on old ideas about what’s efficient or needed.
Winston A. Cely
Editor/Owner | Della St. Media, LLCMac Pro 3GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
4 GB RAM | Final Cut Studio 5.1.4 | Aja Kona LHe“If you can talk brilliantly enough about a subject, you can create the consoling allusion it has been mastered.” – Stanley Kubrick
-
Since I work a lot as a feature film editor on Unity with Avid, I know that FCP’s media managing and multi user workflow takes quite a bit of complex handholding to get through a film, period…ask any union 1st assistant editor and they will run screaming for the hills if you suggest you want to edit your next with on FCP. Is it being done, yes by a few…but there is a complex number of workarounds to deal with it and it is much more manpower intensive than Avid and Unity.
As far as FCP’s trim window being better than Avid…Im really not even sure how to respond to that…I love FCP in many ways over Avid, but this is just amazingly false and NOT a matter of taste. Avid’s trim mode is probably hands down THE best feature of the Media Composer interface and the one MAJOR advantage over other editing platforms.
Honestly my biggest gripes, and this is BECAUSE I like FCP so much, is the trim mode and the goofy workarounds when trying to set up a multiuser/Unity type enviroment. This is due to the way FCP deals with projects and includes everything in that projects file, bins included making it hard to manage people working on the same film and not overwriting each others work…again…can it be done…yes, is it clunky and just a bunch of workarounds due to the way FCP creates projects, YES….I have a friend who is actually quite a big feature film editor and one of the few that always uses FCP for films, but it is a lot of extra work for the assistants which is why they freak out when you suggest FCP for multiuser film work. Turning over a film with FCP can be a nightmare.
Either way I still use both FCP and Avid throughout the year, but I just wish I could really fight for FCP in the feature world, but knowing the headaches on the backend during turnover I wont stick my neck out at this point for it until they figure out a better way, which really means a rewrite of the program.
Paul Harb
Paul Harb-Producer/Director
Wrong Beach Multimedia
Dual 3.2 GHz Quad/10.5.5/8GIG RAM/FCP 6.0.4/QT 7.5.5 -
“no need to “media manage” your footage in the near future”
I never media manage for editing or an “online”, but archiving I use it all the time.
Final products MUST be media managed not because storage is expensive, but because it doesn’t make sense to leave everything on there. Even if you dump the media, I would never want to re-ingest EVERYTHING.
A robust media manager may not outgrow itself quite yet. Eventually storage will be so cheap, and processors and drives so fast that everyone will edit uncompressed HD. It STILL has to be pared down at the end, no?
G5 2.5 Dual PPC
4Gigs Ram
FCS2
Leopard -
My feeling is that if each project has it’s own drive, there’s no need to media manage. Even when it come to archiving the project, really all it comes down to is properly storing your drive and nothing else. If your project fits fine on a drive then there’s no need to dump any footage. Besides, in he future there may be a use for the footage you didn’t use at first.
If you wanted to, you could always create an archive drive of finished projects by just exporting out self-contained QT files.Winston A. Cely
Editor/Owner | Della St. Media, LLCMac Pro 3GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
4 GB RAM | Final Cut Studio 5.1.4 | Aja Kona LHe“If you can talk brilliantly enough about a subject, you can create the consoling allusion it has been mastered.” – Stanley Kubrick
-
>and who knows how much more performance will be there, given that FCP7 is Open CL-aware
Open CL aware … Is this something we now know for a fact Philip? Apologies, been scanning so much info I’ve missed this tidbit. Do you have a link?
Cheers
Andy
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up