-
er, is that it?
-
I think there are two possible scenarios at play. The first is that this is a bit of a reboot. It fixes some design mistakes, changes the architecture to be in line with the new OS and hardware, and adds a few features along the way. Adding back autosaves is less a response to video needs and more in line with what Apple has done in other tools, like Pages and Numbers.
The second possible scenario is that Apple has been on a dual path. That, in fact, this version has been a lot longer in development and has been engineered in parallel with the “original” FCP X. In that scenario, FCP X prior to this was a stopgap beta that was a placeholder until this version came along.
The real concern, now that Apple has decided software updates are free, is that there is no external driver for feature improvements. The “rapid updates” mantra is nothing other than marketing spin. For all we know, there are very few engineers actually working full time on FCP X software development.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Yes, nevermind other meaningful features, thank God they made it dual-gpu aware, because this is always the top priority of editors everywhere.
-
[Oliver Peters] “The real concern, now that Apple has decided software updates are free, is that there is no external driver for feature improvements. The “rapid updates” mantra is nothing other than marketing spin. For all we know, there are very few engineers actually working full time on FCP X software development.”
On your first point, IF Apple has decided that you’ll only ever need to buy FCPX once (and I don’t think we can make this assumption just on this release), and updates are free in perpetuity- then the driver for Apple is most likely hardware. If Apple can sell customers a Mac (from a few thousand to higher-end MacPros) every few years), I think that more than makes up for $299 every 2-3 years.
On your second point- with the OS oriented (let’s not forget that this couldn’t’ have been released any earlier than Mavericks) structural changes to the database, those foundational changes may have prevented/delayed more surface work. Alex4Ds iMovie blog posts certainly point to LOTS of features under development in the code that were not there in 10.0.9. Plus, with the quick slipping of dates, it certainly seems like this release of FCPX was waiting on the MacPro, rather than the other way round. Weeks, or perhaps even months.
Finally, the info I’ve heard is that the FCPX team is not reduced in size from what it was 3-4 years ago.
-
I’d hesitate to guess that this is the second time in 2 years that FCPX development has been at least somewhat guided by hardware support. Last year with the 10.0.5 Retina release for the rMBP at WWDC, and now for the new MacPro. While both of these are nice, I wonder how much further along things would be in other areas if Apple hadn’t had to align with those hardware releases.
-
[Oliver Peters] “non-functional audio mixing”
This has come up a few times.
Are you key framing audio volume?
-
[Peter Gruden] “FCPX indeed is an audio island”
What about you? Do you key frame the volume?
-
I guess I still fantasize about interface flexibility and customization, optional tracks? A source viewer that actually has functional reason for being. Just one new feature that would have everyone talking… but nothing… yet…
I get it – everyone is editing wrong and Apple is going to teach us how to do it right – maybe I’m just an old dog…
Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 -
Project versioning “snapshots” is it for me. Plus the puck on clips being a soft select- meaning you can just start working away at any clip with translation/crop/cc/retiming without having to manually select anything. That will save me loads of time.
-
[Lance Bachelder] “I guess I still fantasize about interface flexibility and customization,”
Haven’t you noticed that Apple has systematically eliminated user customization of the UI in nearly all of its products?
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Richard Herd] “Are you key framing audio volume”
Sometimes yes, sometimes, no. In FCP X I used range-based levels. In Media Composer, Premiere Pro, FCP 7, Soundtrack Pro and Audition, I usually write automation passes.
The big mixing complaint in X for me is that you cannot apply track-based effects nor do anything interactive that would typically involve busing. In X, this requires compounds, which I find useless for mixing. For example, the simple process of applying a limiter across the whole mix by adding it to a master bus, isn’t available to you in X.
I often find, with complex mixes in X, that I do one of 2 things: 1) Mix in X, export an AIFF, run it through SoundForge Pro for “mastering” and then re-import; or, 2) XML it to STP or Audition for more surgical work.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up