Apple Releases Major Final Cut Pro X Update with Dual Viewers, Multichannel Audio Tools, RED Camera Support and More

kingtj said:

I think your comment raises another question. Why doesn't Apple invest some serious effort into their XGrid technology?

It seems to me the whole XGrid thing should be handled at the OS level, so software doesn't need to be "XGrid aware" to make use of it. If you own 3 Macs on your LAN with XGrid enabled on them and you start compressing an archive file or converting a video from format to format, the load should automatically get shared among the 3 Macs.

Click to expand...

Apple did place some emphasis on X-Grid and I was one of the beta testers. Rocket stuff. It has a couple of limits that have since been addressed. One is network speed. Not so great on Gigabit Ethernet, great on Infiniband by throwing thousand dollar bills at the problem. Now we have Thunderbolt so it is out of the box practical now!

As for apps being able to use it, OSX already made a few huge leaps in that direction to optimize MacPros (and X-serve) with multiple processors, cores and threads. I think we are actually there now. I think this is a deployable technology. Animators, audio engineers, video editing, signal processing can just add as many CPU blocks as needed until either the network is saturated or the problem is solved. If a 2013 Mac-Midi Pro were to have dual processors and 4xTB connectors, they could be linked in a way that 4x4 (16 CPU boxes) could operate at near optimal capacity, and 4x4x4 (64 CPU boxes) system would have a second tier of extra capacity for applications that are more processing intensive (rendering) than I/O intensive (fluid dynamics).

I would like to see the "average" user purchase two Mac-Midi Pros, and an external graphics accelerator box, all TB linked.

I would like to see a DC power input to lower the power usage and facilitate standardized installs.

Rocketman

cites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xgrid
http://www.apple.com/science/insidetheimage/thrust_belt/
http://www.apple.com/science/solutions/clustercomputingresources.html
http://www.digikey.com/us/en/techzo...valuating-dc-vs-ac-power-in-data-centers.html

The lowest priced mac with at least 2 TB ports (2x2=4 CPU boxes) is the new low end iMac at $1299.
http://www.apple.com/imac/specs/
The new Mac-Mini only has one. So you could daisy chain 5 of them for a rendering task, but would be useless for fluid dynamics.

Small White Car said:

Right now it's not looking good for Apple, but few have actually made a decision yet. Apple has about a year to impress them, I think.

Click to expand...

Not us, we just went complete Avid over the past three months...

They can keep adding features, but it is still a fundamentally unprofessional application. Proper organization in FCPX is impossible.

workflow

I was wondering if this update brought back "send to motion" feature? What about being able to open fcp7 files in fcpx?

BlueParadox said:

And that's one of the ridiculous reasons for people not giving FCPX a go - time to learn a new program and challenge many techniques they already take for granted. I understand many people's initial 'hurt' when FCPX was released last year (missing many keys features and functions), but a common whinge I heard from fellow editors in field was 'finding' the time to learn FCPX's new set-up. Poor excuse (funny thing, though, is many people needed to learn Avid or PP when leaving the Apple boat!).

That's the way of the world - learning and updating. Doctors do it, teachers do it, and people who rely on computers do it. No reason why digital editors can't do it. If the reason, however, is something else, then fine: move over to Avid or PP. But if it's whinging about the time it will take to learn FCPX then that excuse simply doesn't wash. Anyhow, rant over.

PS. I've been using FCPX since 10.0.3, deciding to sit down with it for 2-3 days earlier this year and find out why Apple changed it and discover what all the crying was about. Noticed some deficiencies but most of them are now gone, and FCPX is my preferred editing app. Love it!

Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about. FCPX is an amateur piece of software. FCP 7 was a very mature application.

What have you worked on? I've worked on Girl With a Dragon Tattoo for David Fincher. I think I know more about this than you do.

----------

4God said:

Oh Really?

http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/in-action/radical/
http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/in-action/electric/
http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/in-action/phoenix/

Click to expand...

Just fluff.

----------

Artful Dodger said:

I really like this statement fwiw, interesting what will happen in 5-10 years to those not wanting to learn new software when all these kids who used the new stuff come rolling in with attitude like it was recess time

I'm just starting out with FCPX, yet when I look at the others I wonder, people jumped to FCP years ago from said "__" and had to adjust to things so why is it difficult to get unstuck on a one way path (I'm thinking of a rut) and I do understand hey you know one way and it flows, for now.

I watched a short clip from Adobe PP CS6 and thought, geez, looks like FCPX with more layers but very similar so where will they be going in the long run as well and how many people will say Adobe is always innovating just like they do with PS.

I guess I'm in the middle bracket (generation wise) when I hear things like I don't wan't to learn this or that and it takes too much time or all the other stuff focused around learning in an industry that you are already in. Of course then I'm also reminded about why things generally stay the same, for now anyway

I think by Apple adding back in the things they took out on everyone is because it has/had to be rewritten for FCPX for one and then second might also be they learned the hard way. Guess not one person making a comment about how they screwed up ever had a lesson learned the hard way in life until now, just a thought. It's a nice day out here so enjoy your day

Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with older people adapting to newer technology.

It has to do with releasing immature software.

It is understandable that Apple needed to rewrite FCP7 because the core code was really old, but the point is if an application does not work properly, the INDUSTRY (high end work) will move on to something else. That is how it works.

Sure you can probably do the same things you do in FCP 7 in FCP X, but that is not the point. Studios do not want to invest in new workflows if they are working correctly. There are many technical challenges as it is and they don't need another one.

FCP X is dead, no one is going to take it seriously now. Medium houses will stick to Premiere Pro and high end houses will stick to Avid.

What WILL dictate if FCP X is taken seriously is not it's price point, but who in the industry (people who have a pull in the movie industry) will take it as a challenge and use it to their own advantage. That's what happened with FCP 7. No one would cut film on FCP 7, but then it became affordable and everyone could and they skipped Avid.

----------

aliensporebomb said:

But moving on to Avid is "learning new software".

Click to expand...

It's not. Avid was the standard for a long time. Most people who used FCP 7 already knew Avid.

Remember, editors are usually tech savvy and they can handle learning new applications. FCP X is not a good interface at all, that is the issue here.

SDAVE said:

You have no idea what you're talking about. FCPX is an amateur piece of software. FCP 7 was a very mature application.

What have you worked on? I've worked on Girl With a Dragon Tattoo for David Fincher. I think I know more about this than you do.

Click to expand...

I don't care if you cut Ben hur.

For me, the way I work and what I work on (broadcast and corporate) - FCP X is great. It fits in with my with my mindset nicely and I find I spend a lot more time editing as opposed to telling the edit SW what I'm doing or what I want to do.

Fcp x is not an amateur piece of software. The fact that you say that is proof of your closed mind and the fact that you probably haven't properly used it.

Oh and FCP 1 was ****. FCP legacy wasn't really safe to use until V3. FCP 7 was mature because there was 10yrs of development behind it. X has one - go figure.

mjsanders5uk said:

Yes because we have never had to learn new software have we!

That's got to be the most stupid argument I've heard for not trying FCP X.

With the release of 10.0.6, FCP X is seriously giving Avid and Pr Pro a run for their money. It really isn't a toy, its a very serious, powerful piece of software.

You have to try it, you have to have more than a cursory play with it. It does require a pretty serious change in mindset but once you get it - it's there.

And I speak as someone who's used FCP X in anger for over a year since its release.

----------



I'm a FCP user since V1.

I think the key is getting the link between events and projects.

Click to expand...

What have you done in your life that constitutes as a whole a contribution to the filmmaking community? Are you doing skateboarding videos? Church recitals? Weddings? That's fine, stick to FCP X.

Let the people who do this for a living decide if it's good or not.

Apple is trying to reinvent the wheel here, when the wheel has been perfectly fine for a long long time (think late 80's).

If they wanted to reinvent something, they should have just taken FCP 7 and rewritten in from the ground up, gave it a better looking GUI and kept most, if not all the features.

They can reinvent the phone market, tablet market, but they cannot reinvent the creative market that is already fairly standardized. It's their loss, really. Also the lack of Mac Pro updates says a lot about Apple's stance in the ever diminishing professional market.

I still love my Macs, I would never use windows.

----------

mjsanders5uk said:

I don't care if you cut Ben hur.

For me, the way I work and what I work on (broadcast and corporate) - FCP X is great. It fits in with my with my mindset nicely and I find I spend a lot more time editing as opposed to telling the edit SW what I'm doing or what I want to do.

Fcp x is not an amateur piece of software. The fact that you say that is proof of your closed mind and the fact that you probably haven't properly used it.

Oh and FCP 1 was ****. FCP legacy wasn't really safe to use until V3. FCP 7 was mature because there was 10yrs of development behind it. X has one - go figure.

Click to expand...

That's fine, do what you do in your corporate banking videos, but don't try to dictate what happens in the high end industry, which FCP 7 was highly appraised for being affordable and feature rich.

I have used it, I dislike the bin structure and the "magnetic" playhead. It's a horrible piece of application.

Sure it's fast, but that doesn't mean anything.

FCP comes from Macromedia, and we all know how horrible their code base was. Including Flash and Director. Yes, FCP 1-4 sucked (still usable), but FCP 7 was fine as it was.

Apple also bought then dumped Shake, a very good piece of application. Let's not forget that.

Please. Stick to your corporate and banking videos. No one in this forum knows what they're talking about when it comes to the professional market. No one has credentials here. Same goes for the photography area of this site as well as the design area.

P.S. Ben Hur was not cut digitally

SDAVE said:

What have you done in your life that constitutes as a whole a contribution to the filmmaking community? Are you doing skateboarding videos? Church recitals? Weddings? That's fine, stick to FCP X.

Let the people who do this for a living decide if it's

Click to expand...

http://www.mjsanders.co.uk

I'm currently cutting a 60min doc I shot and directed, which has interest from two well know UK broadcasters... ON FCP X. Oh and Craig Slattery over at BBC Culture show is using X to cut segments for the show.

mjsanders5uk said:

I'm currently cutting a 60min doc I shot and directed, which has interest from two well know UK broadcasters... ON FCP X. Oh and Craig Slattery over at BBC Culture show is using X to cut segments for the show.

Click to expand...

Horrible work. Doesn't matter if it aired on BBC or CBS.

Like I mentioned above, there are a lot of amateurs on this forum.

SDAVE said:

Horrible work. Doesn't matter if it aired on BBC or CBS.

Like I mentioned above, there are a lot of amateurs on this forum.

Click to expand...

There are - but I'm not one of them!

Lets see your credentials then...

mjsanders5uk said:

There are - but I'm not one of them!

Click to expand...

I'm glad you have the guts to post your work here, but it's pretty bad. What were you trying to accomplish here? A voice of reason?

I apologize if this is harsh, but really, you're not doing anyone favors here by posting that kind of work here.

SDAVE said:

I'm glad you have the guts to post your work here, but it's pretty bad. What were you trying to accomplish here? A voice of reason?

I apologize if this is harsh, but really, you're not doing anyone favors here by posting that kind of work here.

Click to expand...

So lets see your work then.... Maybe I can learn from a master.

mjsanders5uk said:

So lets see your work then.... Maybe I can learn from a master.

Click to expand...

No.

SDAVE said:

No.

Click to expand...

Arrh, so full of ******** then?

mjsanders5uk said:

Arrh, so full of ******** then?

Click to expand...

You are allowed to think that way, mate. Doesn't change the fact that your work is terrible. Below average at best. Not even at Fox News level.

Good luck with FCP X.

mjsanders5uk said:

There are - but I'm not one of them!

Click to expand...

Just give up. He's the type who only rates a project's value based on their budget. Notice how he doesn't brag about his own projects that he actually came up with but rather thinks that working for a famous director means more. Never mind that that means he was merely a button-pushing tech for someone else's vision...no, what matters is that the guy he worked for is famous you see.

I'd rather hear about people's own artistic ventures such as the aforementioned BBC documentary. I am certain that this other guy has created art of his own, but you'd never know it based on his posts. The fact that he would brag about being a tech over being an artist says a lot about his priorities. Namely, he worked for someone famous and you didn't so you'll never win.

It's not worth trying to win that fight.

Small White Car said:

Just give up. He's the type who only rates a project's value based on their budget. Notice how he doesn't brag about his own projects that he actually came up with but rather thinks that working for a famous director means more. Never mind that that means he was merely a button-pushing tech for someone else's vision...no, what matters is that the guy he worked for is famous you see.

I'd rather hear about people's own artistic ventures such as the aforementioned BBC documentary. I am certain that this other guy has created art of his own, but you'd never know it based on his posts. The fact that he would brag about being a tech over being an artist says a lot about his priorities. Namely, he worked for someone famous and you didn't so you'll never win.

It's not worth trying to win that fight.

Click to expand...

There are so many things wrong here, I don't even know where to start.

This forum is very amateurish when it comes to creativity. The one's who are doing work every day don't have time to post here. I couldn't hold back. All this worshipping of Apple is horrendous and pathetic.

Believe me, they have felt the hurt from FCP X, that's why they are trying to salvage it.

Ok going back to work now, was really fun. Enjoy FCP X.

SDAVE is behaving like a troll. Ignore him. In fact almost never address particular posters. Make all posts to the audience at large and all will be well again.

When I reply to a post I snip everything I am not responding to.

I was amused by the term you used to describe him, however.

If you want to do a documentary of our UK rocket work, you are welcome to co-produce with us.

Frooty Loops!

I actually wouldn't mind seeing iMovie getting an update sometime in the near future, backporting all of the under-the-hood enhancements of FCPX for normal consumers.

proximity said:

Cory Bauer said:

Is it still completely incapable of opening and saving projects on a network volume, limited to local storage only?

Click to expand...

Local and Xsan only. You will never be able to save a project file to a specific location such as your desktop, you may only export XML if you need to put in somewhere else.

Click to expand...

I am not a video editor, but to me that just screams NOT PRO.

Perhaps Apple envisages a future where the network volume ceases to matter as it is superseded by iCloudPro.

I've been persisting with FCP7 hoping FCX would get better.

Unfortunately, FCX doesn't really seem to be addressing the major problem I had which was a lack of proper organisation.

Saving projects/files to specific client drives, organising clips into bins, and having a layered timeline are not negotiable. Being able to work on different computers is also a problem.

FCX still either lacks the ability to do this or the ability is severely munted.

I really have resisted moving on to Avid or Adobe, but FCP7 is really creating workflow problems with RED and DSLR footage.

Personally I am looking toward Lightworks. It's a proven system, it works great on Windows. It's owned by Editshare so their core business is the professional market. Best of all it is free (or $60 a year for the pro version).

Why spend any money buying/upgrading immature software like FCX or migrating to Avid/adobe when I can use Lightworks for free?

SDAVE said:

You have no idea what you're talking about. FCPX is an amateur piece of software. FCP 7 was a very mature application.

What have you worked on? I've worked on Girl With a Dragon Tattoo for David Fincher. I think I know more about this than you do.

Click to expand...

Ah, the biggest bit of fiction I've read so far! Good luck with the aspiration to one day work with Fincher. Thanks for the laugh. Just remember, it's about preference - not fact - as you seem to purport FCPX to be.

(damn, I gave into his trolling!)

SirHaakon said:

It's not just the processors. It's the GPU. It's the complete lack of Thunderbolt, when even the freakin mini has it. It's the complete lack of Blu-ray (even though they'll never add it). It's the complete lack of USB3.

And yes, the damn chassis is way too huge.

Click to expand...

Absolutely right but if you need bluray just buy one and stick it in your SuperDrive slot...

SDAVE said:

What have you worked on? I've worked on Girl With a Dragon Tattoo for David Fincher. I think I know more about this than you do.

Click to expand...

Wait, were you talking about maturity?

"Thou shall not speak of FCPX in a good manner as I have been the 'chief debayerer' of epic RED EPIC footage for David Fincher's epic movie! Silence!"