[Gary Huff]

[Ronny Courtens] “So real performance tests will only be possible once the new MacPro is actually here.”

I agree, but I also think that, if the CPU isn’t performing more significantly than the one in the current Mac Pro, and given that you can always upgrade your GPU (Mountain Lion supports a significant number of new graphics cards, even though you don’t get any picture without a Mac-based card until you get to the desktop), I’m sure you can significantly close any gap between the two, performance-wise.

[Gary Huff]

[Ronny Courtens] “o someone claims they have tested the CPU that is probably going to be one of the CPUs used in the new Mac Pro. “Claims” because this source has not been officially confirmed. “Probably” because this is an educated guess. And to be fair: if this test were indeed official I certainly would not call it a “speed test of the MacPro 2013″, but merely a test of the CPU that will possibly be used in it.”

It’s not quite that someone is “claiming” it…apparently it’s results that were transmitted back to Geekbench’s servers, and someone noticed that the system identifiers indicated it was more than likely the new Mac Pro (including the fact that Geekbench was being run on a custom build of Mavericks).

[Gary Huff]

Then the discussion is clearly far from being concluded then, correct?

[Gary Huff]

But you can add more powerful GPUs to the Mac Pro, essentially closing the gap even on that.

[Gary Huff]

Today, just two short years after FCP X shipped, there is an entire plugin ecosystem around FCP X. This is to the enormous benefit of editors, and we are proud to have played a role in it. To my knowledge, it is unique among NLE platforms.

That seems to be stretching it. Lots of plugins for AVID/Premiere/Vegas/etc. as well. What IS unique is, obviously, publishing through Motion for plugins, but this “ecosystem” also includes a lot of stuff that is of dubious benefit, or things that already exist in NLEs, but need the Motion architecture workaround to get it in FCPX.

At the June 2013 WWDC keynote, Apple announced a new Mac Pro, and specifically called out support for video editors and FCP X. With that announcement, we can now officially conclude the “Is FCP X pro?” discussion.

I fail to see how having a computationally powerful desktop concludes that discussion. What features does the Mac Pro add to FCPX in and of itself? Answer: none.

Two years ago, I predicted that within a year, FCP X would be the platform used by most professional video editors. Is that true? It’s impossible to say, because “professional video editor” is a concept that is being redefined as I write this.

That’s a “no” if I ever heard one.

[Gary Huff]

[Nikolas Bäurle] “I keep on running into roadblocks when using FCP 7:-)”

Yeah, how did anyone ever edit video before FCPX?!?!?

[Gary Huff]

It seems to have been the automatic EQ settings. Changing from “Vocal” to “Flat” kept my levels from changing randomly…at least enough to get the project rendered out correctly.

[Gary Huff]

[Oliver Peters] “No need to put R&D effort into unproductive software that no one is using.”

I’ve actually used Encore quite a bit this year already…but I’m not terribly bummed…Encore CS6 works fine for most of my needs.

[Gary Huff]

[Scott Clements] “Thanks for the suggestion. However, I should have stressed that I was looking for an affordable way to do this – without purchasing one of these docks that cost a few hundred dollars. There really should be a simple adaptor, but for some reason Apple seems to have made this impossible.”

Do you happen to have the 17″ 2011 MacBook Pro by any chance?

[Gary Huff]

I have already done two projects in the last two weeks, and starting up a third (all C100/300 footage).