[Mathieu Ghekiere]

No, his suggestion is about the NEXT release of Xeon processors, with a 22nm process (or how do you call it?)
The reasons are in the posts Paul dugg op in response to my post (thank you, Paul. I once had a post that I made here that said it had to be reviewed by the moderators because it had bad words in it, namely D – V – info . net which I found very stupid, to be honest. I can’t even put that word in my post, or that’s a *bad word* ?
So I thought putting links to R-E-D-user would maybe have the same effect, so I didn’t put straight links. It seems to work with you, thanks for your search! Those are indeed the posts that I meant.

Oh, and my opinion is also that Apple should have done a MUCH better job with the current upgrade of the Mac Pro, but it seems like they are just planning for that big release next year, and the current update was a last minute change because of the bad press they were getting around the Mac Pro (the Face book page appearing everywhere, etc.)
I don’t disagree with you on that, anything but. But if they want to put all their efforts to making the next generation Mac Pro a MUCH bigger leap in power/design/… then I can take it that this upgrade wasn’t what it in our mind should have been.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Just look at what they did with the Macbook Pro Retina.
Personally, this really gave me the feeling that they were tied to the Pro.

They used all their proprietary things and experience they made from the last years, and put it in a product that’s in a way typically Apple: technically brilliant, and maybe more way out there then every other competing product (crazy display, special made fans, non-removable RAM BUT a very tight package, huge potential trough the 2 thunderbolt ports which is also a technology made by them and Intel, …), but it took a while to get there, and it’s very closed off.
But by making some crazy decisions in the design, they come with a product that I believe is very difficult for the competition to match in price or overall features (like they have with their iPad).
They also constantly used Aperture, Photoshop and Final Cut Pro X to show off the laptop, even in their recent TV commercial.

To me this says that it’s for real: they are working on a new Mac Pro, which will also be pretty closed off and radical in some ways, but also far ahead of the competition. Look at FCP X. You can hate it (I sure did in the beginning), but they put some very good groundwork there with the whole meta-data fundaments that will be difficult for the competition to match. It’s very incomplete, but Apple is getting there.
And 4K Thunderbolt displays.

I don’t like the way the Mac Pro’s were (not) updated now. I think Apple could do better, I really do. Pathetic graphics card, huge price for old hardware. But if you go the the forum of RED, and read some posts by Jeff Killgroe who is very knowledgeable, he laid out the technical reasons why he never expected Apple to update the Mac Pro now, and why he believes they will with the next Xeon processors.
Because with those processors, they can immediately make the ‘crazy’ product that they want, that makes a lot less heat, is faster, has native Thunderbolt and USB 3 support, and make it in a much smaller package than the current Mac Pro.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

@Brett: I’m talking about the pink selection in this picture:
https://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_la6kjt0J7o1qdu9mz.png
(picture from FCP Express though, but works the same in FCP 7). It unlinks video and audio in the complete timeline, not only from a selection.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

I’ve also didn’t have problems with FCPX and large stills on a 2010 i7 iMac.

In fact, it’s one of the reasons that I re-tried FCP X after bashing it with the 10.0.0 release.

10.0.3 was just released, and I had a project FULL of Ken Burns zooms and stills, large to small.
Knowing that FCP X had the automated Ken Burns effect that would save me a LOT of time vs key framing in FCP7 (and the way the Ken Burns effect works ‘intelligently’ was also great – read: if you make the clip longer, it would make the zoom/move slower, but keep the same begin and end position), and FCP 7 had a 4K graphic limitation which FCP X doesn’t have.
So I decided to give the program another chance then. Have been cursing and intrigued since then at the same time. Lots of potential in the program, but also a long way to go.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

@T. Payton: Yes, but once you add a new clip in the timeline after that, it has the audio together with the video again.
That’s what bothers me, and I send feedback to Apple. If you would choose ‘FOR ALL’, and then keeps them all apart even if you add clips to the timeline afterwards, it would work more logical.

@Andy: I’m talking about breaking apart the audio and video, and not detaching it. In FCP X, these are 2 separate commands, and the first keeps your audio in sync. With the second it’s possible to have your audio out of sync. In that case we indeed need out-of-sync markers! What if you have to edit something that you know is all 3 frames off? FCPX makes this a lot less intuitive then FCP 7.

@Bret: in FCP 7 you have a button on the button bar: unlink audio and video. Once you do that, ALL the video and audio will be unlinked after you pushed that button.
In Premiere you don’t have such a command for your complete timeline. I think you’re not getting my point, I’ll try to explain better:

in FCP 7, if I push the button BEFORE EDITING, all my audio and video is unlinked. I can then BEGIN editing in the timeline and have freedom to make easy J and L cuts.. It’s always off in my case.

In Premiere (and FCP X now, unfortunately), I have to first put my clips in the timeline. THEN I have to unlink the audio and video. Why do I mind the difference? Simple:
In Premiere (or FCP X), if I add for instance, 10 clips. And I select those 10 clips, unlink audio and video, make J and L cuts. If I then add new clips to the timeline, I have to click AGAIN on those to unlink video and audio. And again and again every time I add clips afterwards where I want to unlink video and audio.
In FCP7, it’s one button, one click to link or unlink, for the complete timeline and every clip I add afterwards.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Everyone, please post this bugs to Apple. My own experience has been pretty hit and miss too.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Aha, with the Matrox it is indeed so if you use it for monitoring, you can’t use it for MAX. Damn. Didn’t think of that.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

When I came from Premiere and started using FCP, one of the things that I found of the best interface changes was the simple fact, that in FCP you had one button unlinking audio and video on your timeline.

In Premiere Pro (and to my knowledge, this is still the case) you had to right click every clip, and click: unlink. Yes, you could select a group of clips and then do it, but every time you added a clip on the timeline afterwards you had to reclick, etc. …

In FCP it was one button. Making J and L cuts afterwards was no problem.

Now, with FCP X in essence, making J and L cuts is even easier in the sense that you have a trackless timeline that moves clips under/above if you extend audio only. But I was very surprised and disappointed that it reverted back to a behaviour like that in Premiere where you should click all the clips in a timeline to get audio and video separated. If you add a new clip after that to the timeline… have to click again.

I mailed Apple my feedback. I told them that they should have a button that you could break apart the video and audio of the project, and it would do that for every clip you add. Then it’s still in sync, but it reduces a LOT of the clicking.

That in combination with maybe Jeremy’s proposal (to have it all the multi channels apart, but still in sync) would be very flexible. And markers if you are going out of sync (overdue!) if you do want to break the link between video and audio.

I’m curious to their audio tools. Personally, I think the idea of Roles and the metadata in comparison with tracks is genius, so if they are thinking in the same innovative way for audio mixing, I’m getting very curious!

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

In FCP X you can use: Export Using Compressor Settings.
If you choose that one (Compressor 4) and choose a Matrox Option, do you get the speed you want?

(I haven’t tried it myself)

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

You should mail that to Apple.
I’ve seen some similar results (I posted in a thread about an article of Apple about when to optimize Media, recently), and to be honest, it’s awful.

Yes having so much real time effects and background rendering and importing is nice, but having export times that are FAR longer than the competition isn’t up with their marketing of having a 64bit new code multicore future NLE. A lot of the culprit seems to be in working with XDCAM but If FCP7 could do it fast, FCPX should too.
Maybe the announced native MXF support later this year Will help.
But Olivers test proved that EVEN when working with Prores (THE code to get best performance in FCPX?) you often get slow exports in comparison with the competition.
And/or Red Giant has terrible implementation of their plugins for FCPX, also possible.
End result is the same though.