Point Me In the Direction of A………..

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Scott Sheriff] “Compressor doesn’t even mention 64 bit anywhere.”

Why should Compressor be 64bit? Most codecs are 32bit, so 64bit compressor doesn’t make any sense. Also, if you have a network of computers and they aren’t all 64bit, this could cause problems.

There are some very good technical reasons for Compressor remaining 32bit for now.

If you set it up correctly, you can still completely max out your machine, just look here:

Jeremy

[Chris Harlan]

Amen. And, I’m down with “complex workflows.”

[Craig Seeman]

[Walter Soyka] “while I think it’s very premature to count Apple out of the NLE game, I think we need to be careful about being overly optimistic about what Apple can cram through development for FCPX 10.1.”

That’s it in a nutshell for me.

It’ll take time to add features back. In some cases I suspect Apple will be adding features that either don’t exist or at least in a wildly different form than in other NLEs and think that will attract people back. That too will mean development will likely take some time to get to a “high level of attractiveness for pros” and this is just my speculation.

Since Apple is a business (I think we agree on that) and they want to increase profits (I think we can agree on that) I suspect somewhere in there Apple did this radical change because they believe they’ll make more money in the long run.

One thought does occur. Profit and market share, certainly as witnessed by Apple’s other products, aren’t always one to one. It may very well be that even a mature FCPX will have a smaller market share but may well be more profitable for Apple. Actually that’s not uncommon in post production. Avid does not make most of their money from Media Composer. Only speculative but perhaps Apple is looking at some direction in which FCPX is only the piece of a more profitable integrated solution.

Again all speculative but again this back to “Apple is a business” and “Apple want to increase profits.” Apple may have felt that FCS legacy had little room for profit growth (rightly or wrongly).

[Craig Seeman]

[Herb Sevush] “I said I would believe it when I see it and that is exactly what I meant, nothing more nor less.”

That pretty much shuts down discussion since there’s no point to discussing features until you see them. And if you haven’t used FCPX your assessment of the current features is second hand… although those of us from “all sides” can confirm what’s missing. There’s serious disagreement over the value of what’s there.

[Walter Soyka]

[Craig Seeman] “Again all speculative but again this back to “Apple is a business” and “Apple want to increase profits.” Apple may have felt that FCS legacy had little room for profit growth (rightly or wrongly).”

Yes — but this leads us right back to the early questions from June: is FCPX intended for editorial professionals (now “users with complex workflows”)?

We all have our guesses, but only time will tell.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events

[Scott Sheriff]

[alban egger] “has no background render,”
Don’t need or want that.

[alban egger] ” no skimming,”
Don’t need or want that.

[alban egger] “no keyword tagging with smart collections,”
Don’t need or want that.

[alban egger] “doesn’t playback different codecs as smoothly”
As smoothly as what? X? There are other platforms that do this and have tools for professionals.

[alban egger] ” needs renders on even the simplest composites”
This is pure hyperbole. Simple composites where the source matches the timeline codec play in RT if your system is properly configured.

[alban egger] “no magnetic timeline”
This is the best feature of FCS2/3

[alban egger] “no “conform” within the timeline”
Don’t need that to happen in the timeline. Using CT where needed is a better workflow.

[alban egger] ” terrible 3-way colorcorrector”
The FCS 3WCC is a decent tool, it does what it is supposed to do, and has a pretty straight forward UI. If you want more features or a bit more finesse use Color. The color tool in X is neither better than the 3WCC, and no where near what Color is.

[alban egger] “overcomplicated editing-tool-selections”
Seemed pretty straight forward to me. UPS showed up with my system around 11am, and by dinner time the same day I was up and running, and had captured some test shots and was able to edit, and CG, color correct and output. The secret is to read the manual.

[alban egger] “How anyone call it a professional tool in August of 2011 is beyond me.”
How is this poorly written and punctuated sentence in anyway related to what I said, and what you decided to quote? The answer is, it has nothing to do with what I said. But that seems like that’s all you have, so I guess I’ll give you a hall pass to hurl insults at others with differing opinions. Whatever floats your boat…

[alban egger] “Oh yes, because their workflow is dictated by the investments of 2004. That must be it.”
And your point is what? I hope you know more about editing, than you do business.

Scott Sheriff
Director
https://www.sstdigitalmedia.com

“If you think it’s expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.” —Red Adair

Where were you on 6/21?

[Herb Sevush]

I agree with you up to this point.

“Apple may have felt that FCS legacy had little room for profit growth (rightly or wrongly).”

Everyone realizes that FCS legacy needed to be re-written. It would have been much simpler to do that while maintaining their “complex-workflow” market by upgrading FCS legacy to 64 bit. It is the “legacy” of appealing to the high-end of the market that Apple apparently thinks has little room for profit growth.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Craig Seeman]

[Walter Soyka] “Yes — but this leads us right back to the early questions from June: is FCPX intended for editorial professionals (now “users with complex workflows”)?”

Currently the answer is no. The future looks to improve based on Apple’s FAQ and reports of their London meeting. How well these are implemented? All we can do is wait and see… and use whatever NLE is most appropriate for our current work.

[Scott Sheriff]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Why should Compressor be 64bit? Most codecs are 32bit, so 64bit compressor doesn’t make any sense. Also, if you have a network of computers and they aren’t all 64bit, this could cause problems.

There are some very good technical reasons for Compressor remaining 32bit for now.

If you set it up correctly, you can still completely max out your machine, just look here:”

Jeremy,
Did you read the whole thread? In responding to a chunk of one of my posts:
“You get Final Cut X. Thats it. Motion costs 50 dollars, and Compressor costs 50 dollars. New Motion has a few new cool features, but can only open one project at a time and can’t use two monitors, which is a deal breaker. New Compressor, is really just the same old 32 bit Compresser with a couple of extra prosumer presets, and a bit of chrome on the UI.
DVDSP-gone, STP-gone, Color-gone, Cinema Tools-gone.”
A guy named Ben Scott said this:
“compressor isnt 32 bit

front end GUI is 32 bit

render engine 64 bit

get facts correct before whining”
To which I responded:
“Neither Compressor 4 or Motion 5 list 64 bit operation in the specs on Apple’s web site. Only X is advertized as being a 64 bit app. There is zero reference to “64 bit render engine” in Apple’s tech specs for Compressors rendering system. There is a reference to shared render engine with Motion and Compressor in the specs for X and Motion, but on the Apple Compressor specs there is no mention of this process, with no indication that any process in Compressor is 64 bit.
And since this ‘feature’ is reliant on sharing with X, it must not be native to Motion and Compressor, and probably not available if they are installed in a stand alone configuration.”

In the ensuing flame war, this has been cherry picked( by leaving out the part about stand alone configurations) in an effort to change the context of what I said. Why are you jumping on this bandwagon when you are agreeing with what I said about it being 32 bit?

Scott Sheriff
Director
https://www.sstdigitalmedia.com

“If you think it’s expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.” —Red Adair

Where were you on 6/21?

[Craig Seeman]

[Herb Sevush] “It would have been much simpler to do that while maintaining their “complex-workflow” market by upgrading FCS legacy to 64 bit. It is the “legacy” of appealing to the high-end of the market that Apple apparently thinks has little room for profit growth.”

Apple doesn’t make much money by selling NLEs or NLE upgrades. They make more money selling hardware. I suspect they took the direction they did because they feel they will sell more hardware. Maybe it will, maybe it wont, but given Apple’s profit motive (and not market share motive) they decided to do something different.

In fact, superficially it might make little sense to change the paradigm (connected clips, trackless timeline, etc.) UNLESS there’s a change in business model as well that might expand profits. We certainly don’t know what’s in store but again, I’m looking at this from a business perspective and not as an editor.

Once you start contemplating what might be their business model one starts speculating in some different directions.

IF you take as a given, that Apple doesn’t make much money selling NLEs (at least compared to the rest of the company but even Avid can say that to a lesser extent) then one might at least speculate that they think they’re going to sell more hardware.

Another way to say it, Apple dropped FCS and developed FCPX and it’s driven by motive to increase profits.

The question is (currently not answerable beyond speculation), what direction would they take FCPX in in order to increase profit margins?