-
Finally, a response from Apple regarding FCPX
Kudos to Apple for announcing the RETURN of OMF/EDL/XML export!
Unfortunately, there are still a plethora (yes, a plethora) of concerns that still make future versions of FCPX not suitable for the professional workflow. BUT the return of OMF/EDL/XML export is a huge step to allowing the integration of FCPX into the professional workflow!
Now the question is WHEN!
Thank you Apple for listening to us professionals and we hope that you’ll continue to listen to our concerns — especially in returning the FCP7 pipeline. But at least if we accidentally hire FCPX-using contractors, we can import their files and ‘clean it up’ for our professional workflow.
For more of the Apple response to FCPX, check it out here:
https://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/faq/I know that there are still many glaring issues with FCPX, but I think we can say our standing up for our industry has finally caught Apple’s ear!
FCP — RIP 2011
Director | Writer | DP | VFX Sup |
Aspiring Carpenter | Unintentional 1-man Crew -
7 Replies
-
Oops — i didnt mean ‘accidentally’ — i meant ‘incidentally’ — sorry – dont mean to hate!
Director | Writer | DP | VFX Sup |
Aspiring Carpenter | Unintentional 1-man Crew -
I take it you’re assuming credit for the release of the FAQ and not Apple working on XML support? Because I think they’ve been working on it for a while. It was pointed out days ago by Philip Hodgetts who was told by Apple programmers that it was definitely coming. Also, evidence of XML code in FCP X was discovered by Chris Kenny a few days after it’s release.
-
No – I don’t take credit for Apple’s announcements via their FAQ page — we ALL should take credit for that!
I would like to think that regardless of one’s stance on the FCPX discussion, the fact that the conversation is continuing to be spoken, is the reason for Apple’s release of their FAQ. It is Apple’s attempt to show users that they hear our concerns.
I wish there was a more clear discussion that could be spoken between Apple and ALL users of the FCP-line. But the best we can do, is approach these forums in an attempt to have our concerns heard… and eventually answered.
At least releasing the FAQ page is a more direct response than through the New York Times, right? Plus, it shines some light on what “officially” can and cannot be accomplished with FCPX.
My major concern was that FCPX was a walled-off garden – and although it’s iMovie-esque UI might cause some issues with OMF’s and XML exports, at least there’s a way for FCPX to communicate to third-party post-production platforms. This is huge in my opinion!
-
Umm…what announcement? That Apple will release API’s for 3rd Party Developers to do something? What does that even mean? What if it’s not so cut and dry?
-
I say stick with FCS 3 for a while and give FCP X the wait & watch treatment. Its got its share of bugs & missing features, so why rant now when FCP X is basically BETA software. Let Apple fix things as they have promised to & then we should decide if this product is for us or not.
-
[Stevo Chang] “we ALL should take credit for that!”
I think I’ll give credit where credit is due – with the designers and programers.
-
Natch. For those of us not making purchasing decisions at the moment we can wait and see if Apple decide to reanimate FCPS3. Anyone investing serious cash in the near soontime should be aware of the foggy future of the FCPS3/Macpro ecosystem. There’s been a toxic spill and no-one yet knows how bad, and Apple are STILL in shut-people-up-damage-control-mode.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up