-
Who is Going To Switch?
-
[Charles Cranney] “The fact that so many professionals were upset is a good sign that the technology is disruptive innovation.”
Either that or a piece of sh*t.
or both.
or neither.In fact, that fact isn’t a particularly good sign of anything, except those things you want it to be a sign of.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
i will buy my first Mac since 1994. Because todays pro needs to have all the tools availabele.HOw ever i will run it with bootcamp cause all my apps are windows but i will purchase fcpx and learn it. But adobe is where i am staying unless it becomes avidised.
rc
-
Jeremy, I was making a general statement about pace of software development with the specific example of Matrox as it is topical. I have been part of a lot of beta software cycles over the past twenty years and they all have rushes of enthusiasm followed by periods to consolidate and bug fix.
I doubt FCPX to be so different. So to the question of will Apple keep up the pace of development it has shown over the past year what say you and why.
-
[Herb Sevush] “Call me when they have a time-code window and the ability to quickly re-sync unconnected audio and video.
“Well, the main TC display has always been way easier to read than FC7’s and it follows the viewer, and you can see TC in source clips when you skim them in the timeline or browser. Maybe someone will come up with a plugin to show source TC from clips in a sequence on the viewer, but right now it’s trivial to see TC from anything you want. And, FWIW, now that you can edit audio and assign roles to individual channels while it stays attached to the video, personally I’ll just leave sync audio attached now. No real reason to detach it anymore unless the source is out of sync. But that’s just me… 😉
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[Charlie Austin] ” the main TC display has always been way easier to read than FC7’s and it follows the viewer”
Not particularly interested in the timeline timecode, I assume it’s visible, even X wouldn’t have screwed that up.
[Charlie Austin] ” you can see TC in source clips when you skim them in the timeline or browser.”
I need to see the source timecode of all layers in the timeline or project or whatever it’s currently called, simultaneously. I need to know which elements are in sync, if not then how far out of sync are they, and a simple way to get them back in sync whenever I wish. And since I’m almost always in multicam mode, by sync I mean in timecode sync irrespective of whether the audio and video come from the same source. For me not having this capability is like driving blindfolded.
[Charlie Austin] “now that you can edit audio and assign roles to individual channels while it stays attached to the video, personally I’ll just leave sync audio attached now. No real reason to detach it anymore unless the source is out of sync. But that’s just me”
Tethering audio to the video it happened to be recorded with is like … well it’s like something I’d prefer not to do. But that’s just me.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “And since I’m almost always in multicam mode, by sync I mean in timecode sync irrespective of whether the audio and video come from the same source. For me not having this capability is like driving blindfolded.
Makes sense… I’m never in multicam mode, but I can see what you’re saying…
[Herb Sevush] Tethering audio to the video it happened to be recorded with is like … well it’s like something I’d prefer not to do. But that’s just me.”
Honestly, for what I do it’s great. I work from (more or less) finished multitrack features, so I generally need dialog and maybe some FX. Now that audio is editable without breaking it apart from the pix there’s no real reason to split it off, other than that’s what i’m used to doing… If I want to move a chunk of on camera dialog, now I don’t need to select an audio and video clip, and then hope, (or perform pre-move track Tetris) I don’t overwrite something where I’m moving it to.
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[Michael Gissing] “Jeremy, I was making a general statement about pace of software development with the specific example of Matrox as it is topical. I have been part of a lot of beta software cycles over the past twenty years and they all have rushes of enthusiasm followed by periods to consolidate and bug fix. “
Yes, I hear that sentiment. But AJA and BMD cards work with zero updates at all, that’s why i thought the Matrox example was a weird example. Maybe Matrox didn’t have as early of access, I don’t know.
I too, think that FCPX will get a lot of attention, it will build up a feature set, and then it will level off to more bug fix/stabilization with smaller, less incremental updates.
Apple still has a lot of work to do on FCPX.
Final Cut Legend sold computers, let’s not make any mistakes about it.
If Apple is going to be making MacPro-ish computers which they have alluded to, then FCPX is going to be a poster child for it.
The Retina MacBook Pros are the standing example.
iMac commercials don’t get the FCPX/Aperture treatment (if marketing is any indication of what kind of customer a company feels their products will attract).
My guess is that the new MacPro replacements will be pricey beasts, as is any beast, when you compare to the likes of an i7 or similar. The costs of these new intel sizzle core processors are going up, not down, from the previous generations.
They will need real pros with real money buying these machines, just like any other computer company needs pro users to buy pro capability.
As the current MacMini is currently almost as fast as a much larger, much heavier, much more power hungry two year old MacPro (https://www.tuaw.com/2012/10/25/mac-mini-catches-2010-mac-pro-in-benchmark-tests/) in certain benchmarks, a pro machine from Apple will have to deliver in a big way and offer significant advantage to a MacMini (or really, an iMac).
In my view, they are building a platform with FCPX. They are building a new system for newer technology, and they felt that scrapping the old system was worth it. It’s going to take a while, but they have shown their hand in their development. By the time “later in 2013” rolls around with the launch of the MacPro-ish thingy, they will have had significant time in the FCPX saddle to build up that feature set. This type of thing takes time, even when you have the huge bank coffers of Apple, Inc.
Also, every new brand new Apple computer with a dedicated GPU that has been released or announced recently, has had new NVidia technology.
Mountain Lion has native support for more NVidia cards.
So, even as a professional you decide your choice isn’t the FCPX system, you can still buy a Mac to use with other professional video applications that heavily rely on a GPU workflow.
This company has somehow been demonized since June 21st all over the professional video space. Some of the backlash is certainly warranted. I see nothing but another big giant company slinging products, it’s what the folks at Apple have always wanted to be. They finally cracked the code.
So, I agree in that I don’t think the pace will keep up forever, but they still have a lot of work to do to keep building on their potential future successes. I, personally, don’t feel Apple has forgotten the likes of the MacPro community quite yet, especially when you consider the myriad of other professionals outside of the video industry that could use a MacPro replacement.
-
[Herb Sevush] “And since I’m almost always in multicam mode, by sync I mean in timecode sync irrespective of whether the audio and video come from the same source. For me not having this capability is like driving blindfolded.”
After setting up your angles in mutlicam, there’s a “timecode” option that displays timecode on every angle in your multiclip:
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “After setting up your angles in mutlicam, there’s a “timecode” option that displays timecode on every angle in your multiclip:”
Yes, Legacy has that as well and I always turn it off. I don’t need anymore info about the multiclip; unless I screwed up when creating it I know the angles are in sync.
I need info about what’s on the timeline (storyline? project?), how the various tracks (or layers or whatever they’re now called) relate to each other in terms of sync. I need something equivalent to Legacy’s combination of timecode window and timeline sync indicators. I’m looking for improvement in that functionality (it’s not like Legacy was perfect in that respect) not it’s total lack.
PPro lacks this functionality as well as X, I won’t consider either one till they have it.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “PPro lacks this functionality as well as X, I won’t consider either one till they have it.”
I guess I am completely misunderstanding you.
You said you were always in multicam mode, FCPX allows you to see every piece of timecode in multicam.
Pr allows you to see every tc on video or audio tracks all at once.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up