-
Since when was the law written you had to upgrade to the latest?
-
[walter biscardi] “The “real world” is anyone who is currently using Final Cut Pro to earn a living. What they are able to accomplish today is exactly what they should be able to accomplish with the new software with much greater efficiency.”
Yes. But I suspect Apple wasn’t interested in making sure they could accomplish it in exactly the same way. People need to quit interpreting every implementation difference as evidence of reduced capability.
[walter biscardi] “Does the shiny replacement allow the user to assign tracks?”
The answer is that we don’t know how this works, but it’s not especially reasonable to believe that Apple has neglected basic, essential features, as you have repeatedly speculated they may have. What you’re doing with respect to FCP X is virtually the definition of FUD.
—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read Does FCP X make project files obsolete? on our blog.
-
[walter biscardi] “Why you have to keep OMF support, assignable track support, Edit to Tape support secret is beyond me, but then I’m not Apple.”
Because they may still be working on these features, because they may not be anything close to their final form, because they may not be sure that these will be finished in time for the June release, because unresolved bugs may impact the final form and time of delivery. These are all typical reasons why developers remain silent on certain features.
Alternately Apple prefers to antagonize the professional post community so they move to Avid and Adobe products, because Apple has no business acumen and the success of Final Cut was just a happy accident and they have no clue as to their target market.
Which of the above makes sense to you?
If you think it’s the latter then it’s time to move to other apps. If you think it’s the former then you have a reason even if you’re not happy with it. -
[Craig Seeman] “Because they may still be working on these features, because they may not be anything close to their final form, because they may not be sure that these will be finished in time for the June release, because unresolved bugs may impact the final form and time of delivery. These are all typical reasons why developers remain silent on certain features.”
If they’re releasing in June, be assured that right now they’re just squashing fairly minor bugs and there’s a fixed date for release. The feature set was engraved in stone many months ago. Nothing’s being added now and it’s highly doubtful that even a single minor feature is being dropped because it doesn’t work. Whatever Apple didn’t say about what’s in FCP X 1.0 was not because they don’t know. It was purposeful. I have utterly no doubt that they expected the reaction and are following the discussions going on now. Which is why some execs were present at the reveal, not to show support, but to gauge reaction.
They started their rebuild from scratch and there’s no way they’re going to match the feature set of 7 with this first release. So the purpose of the preview was to see the reaction and to plan their June announcement accordingly. Expect many promises about what’s to come in the near future.
Is all this cynical and manipulative? Hey, it’s Apple, the masters of cult marketing.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
[walter biscardi] “So you say we should expect to run FCP X and FCP 7 simultaneously on the same machine? How inefficient is that? Two software packages to the do same job?
No I said you could go back to FCP 7 when it made sense to do so. I’d only use one at a time most likely.
[walter biscardi] “Gonna take a 12 core Mac 3 days to convert all of that to ProRes when I could just simply start editing with it natively in Premiere or Avid today.”
So what’s stopping you from buying one or the other? They too would run on the same machine as FCP 7 and/or FCP X. At the prices of Avid, Apple, and Adobe NLE software, there’s very little reason not to run them ALL on the same machine, and chose the one for the job at hand to work on. They are just tools after all, why not fill up the toolbox? Expecting Apple’s new NLE to have every single feature that 7 had plus some, is going to bring you disappointment. You’re sounding like the glass is half empty when I see the situation as the glass half full. It looks to me to be a great start.
Randy U and team have been designing NLE software for a very long time with an impressive history. This is just the latest edition. I would assume they know what the pro world needs to be able to do. After all they’ve been addressing it for a very long time. I think Randy wrote Premiere, Key Grip, FCP 1, iMovie versions, and now FCP X. I figure he knows what the market needs, and has planned releases down the line to address features not included in the 1.0 release of FCP X. That’s how it all works right?
FCP X is a 1.0 release alright. Apple had no other choice. In order to tap into the modern technology presented in the Sneak Peek (Grand Central, Open CL, et all) They had no choice but to start over. FCP 7’s code is so out of date, it couldn’t address all the new OS technology that exists today. To have all the features of FCP 7 is not a cut and paste affair. FCP 7’s computer language isn’t the same as FCP X’s, and every bit of the code has to be re written from the ground up.
Doesn’t matter in any event to my business what Apple does. There are alternative apps including FCP 7 that would work for me in the near term, and FCP X will likely fill the bill in the long term. At $995 buying Avid software seems to be a no brainer. Autodesk software really strikes my personal fancy these days. Offline in the NLE du jour, online in Smoke, looks to be a great workflow.
Never the less, I’ll be first in line in June for FCP X’s download.
Isn’t it great we have all these choices?
Jerry
-
[David Cherniack] “If they’re releasing in June, be assured that right now they’re just squashing fairly minor bugs and there’s a fixed date for release.”
They showed an earlier beta then it’s current state. In my experience, developers do that because there are current features/bugs still work in progress that they feel uncomfortable showing.
[David Cherniack] “Nothing’s being added now and it’s highly doubtful that even a single minor feature is being dropped because it doesn’t work.”
My experience with companies that distribute online instead of by disc and ship is that certain features may be concealed to the end user until they are fixed.
I can’t speak to Apple’s reasons but the above is based direct experience for me, not speculation.
-
[Craig Seeman] “This is, in part, the basis for the amazement in games like “peak-a-boo.” “
Peek a Boo … I used to love that game … but Peek a Boo X Solitaire Edition, man that was rubbish.
-
[Craig Seeman] “They showed an earlier beta then it’s current state. In my experience, developers do that because there are current features/bugs still work in progress that they feel uncomfortable showing.”
I don’t disagree but they also took a last minute decision to show. Prep-ing a demo, discussing it’s content with marketing, and management takes time and takes away from other things. They had a demo from February. They likely went with it for that reason.
[Craig Seeman] “My experience with companies that distribute online instead of by disc and ship is that certain features may be concealed to the end user until they are fixed.”
Online or shipped has no consideration on what features they decide to talk about. Online distribution saves costs but doesn’t reduce the actual development time. The last couple of months are spent dealing with the bugs that still exist and tweaking, not considering which features to include. Those are decided in the design stage, before coding even begins.
[Craig Seeman] “I can’t speak to Apple’s reasons but the above is based direct experience for me, not speculation.”
As is mine which goes back 21 years watching the development of more than a few NLEs.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
Walter…if FCP X isn’t the tool you need, don’t get it. If FCP 7 isn’t the tool you need…don’t use it. If Avid or Premiere does what you need…use them. If you have a screw that you need to get into a piece of wood, you don’t use a hammer, you use a screwdriver. FCP 7 might be fine for a lot of things, and it is for many many people and many many things. But if you then need to edit new formats natively, and FCP 7 doesn’t do it, but hey, Premiere does…or Avid does…go get them. They are cheap enough that you can pay them off after one job (a phrase you yourself like to say often) And Premiere uses the same capture cards as FCP… so no new hardware. Avid now works with a cheap ($995) AJA IO Express for capture and output.
Like Craig, I too see this as an new start…a whole new app that Apple had to write from the bottom up. More features will be added, but they had to start fresh and make sure that the basics worked. Just like earlier versions of FCP.
Anyway…with the tools all being inexpensive, there’s no reason not to have every one of them in your tool belt. 8 years ago an Avid cost $65,000 for an OFFLINE machine. Now you can own all three NLE’s…and hardware…for 1/3rd of that. I myself have two of the tools in my belt, and I am not a large post facility, but rather a freelance editor.
Shane
GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD…don’t miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
[David Cherniack] “The last couple of months are spent dealing with the bugs that still exist and tweaking, not considering which features to include.”
If a bug can’t be killed and it’s deemed severe or a stopper, it can be removed. Actually the code is more likely disabled for the release version rather than removed. As a 1.0 app, it’s quite possible some critical bugs may not be resolved in time for the initial release.
[David Cherniack] “They had a demo from February. They likely went with it for that reason.”
I understand it wasn’t simply the same demo but the same version as February. That’s a bit different. I’m not sure how the people making that claim would know and be permitted to say it was the earlier and not the current beta though. If it’s true, the only reason I can see for that is either there was a noteworthy stability issue in the later version or there would have been features that they wanted to conceal such that might be visible when calling a menu or display.
-
“if
Yes, well ;that’s pretty obvious, isn’t it. How about if you like FCP7 but wanted 64 bit, access to all cores and grand central access to video card gfx engines – the stuff we were hoping to get with the last release. Now we’re f**d, because the designers of Imovie thought it was necessary to reinvent the wheel for people who simply wanted a faster engine. So it’s more like “what if FCP X isn’t the tool you need and because of that FCP 7 will never become the tool you wanted – well then I guess you’re screwed.”
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up