-
Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
-
19 Replies
-
Kinda makes you wonder why the alleged quote by Randy Ubillos saying it wasn’t a high priority. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to say that it’s under way or under development?
Apple has a serious communications issue. It’s their biggest fatal bug IMHO.
-
I wonder what time the internal e-mail went out yesterday that directed that FCS support be re- hung on the site and also directed that a PR person is to be attached to Ubilos 24hours a day and if he opens his mouth again he sleeps with the fishes?
-
Hopefully some of the hysteria will die down now. Apple have messed up the release without a doubt, but it’s becoming clear that they haven’t abandoned pro users and that they do intend on making Final Cut Pro live up to the final part of its name. In time I can see it being quite a powerful program.
-
Chris Kenny already discovered this the day FCPX came out. It’s here on his blog.
https://blog.nicedissolve.com/2011/06/is-python-the-future-of-fcpx-workflow/
Problem is most people aren’t paying enough attention to the details. they’re too busy assuming they know what apple is doing and planning to jump platforms.
-mattyc
-
By that logic, 2 lines up it says (void)importiMovieProject:(800)arg1. So they obviously haven’t figured out if they want it to be iMovie Pro or FCP.
Tim
Now featuring AVID Media Composer
Apple XRAID, XServe, MacPro, Macbook Pro, XSAN, FCP Studio 7 (Sorry, no iMovie Pro)
Apple Monitors, Flanders Scientific Broadcast, Panasonic AG-AF100
Adobe Production Premium, Maxon Cinema 4d
Beer fridge fully loaded. -
[Tim Vaughan] “By that logic, 2 lines up it says (void)importiMovieProject:(800)arg1. So they obviously haven’t figured out if they want it to be iMovie Pro or FCP.”
That makes no logical sense whatsoever. It just means that Apple intend to support multiple formats for import. The more formats it can support, the better. In fact, I’d say that’s a pretty good measure of a “pro” app. Just because it can import iMovie files, doesn’t make it iMovie.
FCPX has some serious professional underpinnings, which, as we can see, are yet to be fully exploited.
-
[Matt Callac] “Problem is most people aren’t paying enough attention to the details. they’re too busy assuming they know what apple is doing and planning to jump platforms.”
Spot on Matt. I wish some people would spend less time blogging and spreading FUD and more time actually learning how to use the program. Take this blog for example:
https://jefferyharrell.tumblr.com/post/6865416226/project-management-in-fcp-x-no-just-no
He spends multiple paragraphs whinging about not being able to filter out keyworded clips, before declaring it “impossible” to do. The reality of course, is that it is indeed possible. In fact, it’s painfully simple – just click on a simple drop menu on top of the event browser (or hit CTRL+X). If he’d spent the hour that he probably spent composing that post, he might have actually worked it out for himself…
-
[Tim Vaughan] “By that logic, 2 lines up it says (void)importiMovieProject:(800)arg1. So they obviously haven’t figured out if they want it to be iMovie Pro or FCP.”
Importing iMovie projects is already enabled. People have been extensively citing this to claim it’s a not a pro app.
My guess is that iMovie importing is already enabled just because it’s easier to do.
—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
-
Ten years ago FCP editors were told that FCP wasn’t a professional program and although in some ways FCP was running circles around Avid and Media 100, it took years for the smear to wear off. I’m afraid we’re going to have to go through that again. Unfortunately, this time it’s the FCP editors who can’t be bothered to do their own research, keep an open mind and spend some time with the program that are spreading the lie. It’s always easier to be cynical and negative but I wonder if they can look past their self perpetuating anger and see, if there’s a possibility they will be using FCP X in the future, how badly they are setting themselves up for the same ridicule.
-
yeah, but Jeffrey has made some pretty good points too – this one below is a bit holistic as it relates to apple’s overall decision to make a trackless magnetic timeline, but it rings pretty true to me:
One of the new features Apple’s touting is what they’re calling the “Magnetic Timeline,” which they describe as an improvement over “traditional, track-based timelines.” Well Apple, love you guys, but we use traditional, track-based timelines for a reason. Ever had a project so organizationally complex you needed twenty tracks of video just to keep it straight? I have. So’s every editor who’s ever done even a reasonable-sized project. And it’s not just organizational convenience, either. Those “traditional tracks” Apple thinks are such dinosaurs map directly onto physical tracks. We need to be able to put music on tracks one and two, VO on three and foley and effects on four through eight. We require the ability to assign different tracks to different output channels, so the tape master that goes to the network meets their delivery specs.
The lack of tracks on the timeline isn’t an omission. It’s another choice. It’s another thing Apple had to sit down, think through, and decide to do. And it’s another way in which Apple’s created a product that’s literally unusable for commercial post.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up