-
Hi-End Pro’s still hangin’ on to 7…
-
[Darren Roark] “once something is possible, it’s just expected.”
I have that problem when I jump from X to 7. Or Pr. Or MC. Oh, and does the fact that I worked on Apes in FCP X mean that we can have a “Hi-End Pro’s Embrace FCP X” headline? 😉 Rumor was Nick was looking at MC. Guess nothing’s happened yet…
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
You mean his everything is awesome and everyone is unhappy routine? That would apply here.
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[TImothy Auld] “[Shane Ross] “I use the tool that completes the task best.”
And that is the trick, is it not?
Tim”
With all of the GPU acceleration and import/export workflow in modern NLE’s – is FCP7 really the best tool?
Brian Mulligan
Senior Editor – Autodesk Smoke
WTHR-TV Indianapolis,IN, USA
Twitter: @bkmeditor -
It depends on what you do. A year back I tested doing transmission masters in FCP7, FCPX and PP (I presume CS6). FCPX fastest at rendering one sequence out hands down, FCP7 beat PPRO. HOWEVER, FCPX’s rendering to SD-resolution was worst of the pack. Further more, FCP7 has batch-exporting. FCPX has a background encoding list but you have to export times per sequence (sequence handling has been boosted in 10.1 but still no batch export). This oddly makes the old-timer with out GPU acceleration and 64-bit the best tool for the job.
In other situations FCPX has blown my mind with its realtime performance. Still haven’t felt a super-urge or need to swap from a tool that works just yet. By the time I so, Resolve 11 might be a better solution or my self as we primarily do online / finishing work.
-
[Brian Mulligan] “With all of the GPU acceleration and import/export workflow in modern NLE’s – is FCP7 really the best tool?”
Brian,
There are many workflows where import and export hasn’t improved (in any NLE) since FCP 7. (eg. projects entirely in ProRes).
As for GPU acceleration, there are many workflows that don’t rely so much on this – where the disadvantage in GPU optimization would be outweighed by other advantages of FCP7.
There will always be those who think an editor doesn’t know her own needs – for classic examples you can reach back to Mac/PC, Avid/FCP, digital/analog oppositions. If an editor feels X* best meets her needs and the post team is good with that, who’s going to argue?
Franz.
[* for unknown values of X] -
[Brian Mulligan] “With all of the GPU acceleration and import/export workflow in modern NLE’s – is FCP7 really the best tool?”
In some cases…yes, it still is the best tool.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
Although I will say that today I find myself editing with FCP 7, and after 2 years of being on Avid… I hate it. Everything BUT working with stills. That is the one thing that FCP 7 excels over Avid in every possible way. Using stills in Avid is painful….
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up