Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Says MultiCam Support is "Top Priority" in FCP X and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
First off, for what I do FCPX is great. I don't use multicam, I don't send out my audio for ProTools mixing, I don't use EDL's, RED footage or share work on projects with a team of editors.
That said, this whole controversy might have been avoided if they had just released FCPX in the Fall instead of June with the features people are looking for and after letting devs properly put together their 3rd party wares. I for one am happy to get going on it now instead of October when I'll need it most.
I did this yesterday on FCPX:
http://youtu.be/PPnJyBS65H4
That said, this whole controversy might have been avoided if they had just released FCPX in the Fall instead of June with the features people are looking for and after letting devs properly put together their 3rd party wares. I for one am happy to get going on it now instead of October when I'll need it most.
I did this yesterday on FCPX:
http://youtu.be/PPnJyBS65H4
If I remember correctly I was able to run FCP 3.0 and FCP 5.0 at the same time via the same drive. Both installed on the same drive. That was probably 5/6 yrs ago perhaps. You can have FCP7 and X on the same machine but cant have both running at the same time.
rob
With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. No one is saying they can't make edits with FCPX. Editors need to get their audio to sound people (via OMF export) and their picture to conform/vfx/DI (via EDLs). Once everything is done, it's output to tape. All of these tools are essential to the feature film and broadcast TV workflows, have existed in FCP for a long time and now are not part of FCPX. Apple previewed FCPX at NAB and assured people they weren't abandoning that market yet they have chosen to devote programming resources to making Export to Facebook functions. That's what people are upset about.
Last edited:
Your last statement is factually inaccurate; in fact, FCX can run on a Macbook with only an Intel graphics chip. Not an optimal setup, but it's certainly doable. My year-old base level iMac will handle it just fine.
Your earlier statement is subjective, and it sounds like you haven't actually used the software. Are you just upset about the missing features? That's understandable, but won't that mean you'll be happy when they're back? Or do you just not like change?
Is FCP7 better than Avid? If so, why not just keep using it? If it's worse, why did they change over to it in the first place? It seems rather childish to revert to an old, more expensive software solution simply because you're unhappy that a new piece of software that you are not obligated to acquire doesn't have the features you need.
If the studio needs to leave FCP7, that's fine; but you sound like you're looking to pick a fight, rather than considering the facts. They won't be too happy with you if they invest thousands of dollars in Avid (again) and then FCPX turns out to be the future of editing with everyone using it in 18 months. Your opinion will mean a lot more if you say, "This doesn't work right now, wait and see before upgrading."
Lots of Blackberry fans scoffed at the original iPhone, which in fairness lacked third party apps, multitasking, and other crucial features. Those fans aren't laughing anymore.
Last edited:
When you read this article, it reads like a shopping list of software/plug ins that you need to 'replicate' features that the older versions had.
"This plugin to export", "That plugin to transcode" and "buy this 3rd party card to monitor"....
So FCPX is £180 but then you have to buy a $500 plugin to regain some functionality and buy a video card for £X.XX (cannot find the price of the KONA AJA card right now) to regain some more functionality....
I hope Apple do update in the future to reinstate what only 3rd party solutions can at present, otherwise that great price of £180 goes out the window once you get to the checkout with your half dozen other products!!
Yes, its because the pros are the ones paying their bills with the output of the software...
Most pros were on the edge of their seats waiting for this to drop and it has been a huge disappointment, the shock of what seems to be missing is a hard pill to swallow when ones expectations were so high.
I do applaud apple in attempting to change the game, but some leaps are just too far.. in this case they have let a lot of people down.
Little by little is the way to change things when people's bills and mortgages rely on consistent and high quality output.
If Apple had released an update to FCP 7 that was the same interface and added functionality in FCPX then changed features little at a time instead of the reverse of throwing everything out then reinstating them little by little then there would not have been such an uproar.
"This plugin to export", "That plugin to transcode" and "buy this 3rd party card to monitor"....
So FCPX is £180 but then you have to buy a $500 plugin to regain some functionality and buy a video card for £X.XX (cannot find the price of the KONA AJA card right now) to regain some more functionality....
I hope Apple do update in the future to reinstate what only 3rd party solutions can at present, otherwise that great price of £180 goes out the window once you get to the checkout with your half dozen other products!!
Yes, its because the pros are the ones paying their bills with the output of the software...
Most pros were on the edge of their seats waiting for this to drop and it has been a huge disappointment, the shock of what seems to be missing is a hard pill to swallow when ones expectations were so high.
I do applaud apple in attempting to change the game, but some leaps are just too far.. in this case they have let a lot of people down.
Little by little is the way to change things when people's bills and mortgages rely on consistent and high quality output.
If Apple had released an update to FCP 7 that was the same interface and added functionality in FCPX then changed features little at a time instead of the reverse of throwing everything out then reinstating them little by little then there would not have been such an uproar.
Last edited by a moderator:
are you saying apple should devote tens of thousands of developer hours to prevent an uproar? makes bad business sense to me.
You don't run a business, do you. Typically, preventing uproars among your customer base is a good idea.
This mindset is profoundly short-sighted.
Perhaps the new interface and features, when revealed, made some customers hold off buying new or additional copies of FC7 ($1000 each) because FCPX is $300. Only to find out when released that it won't work well in a pro situation, i.e. networked, multiple editors working on specific tasks on a deadline, or TV shows that use multiple cameras, can't used calibrated reference monitors, etc.
Companies do this ALL the time, announce something to keep people hooked so they don't go elsewhere. This time though, Apple led people to believe this was a PRO app, but it can't be used in a PRO situation.
Apple KNOWS how professionals use their Pro-Apps (Apple's term) so they know when they leave out features that are essential in most high-end situations, but don't say it at an unveiling at NAB, they are misleading customers into the expectation that it will be a Pro-App.
It was kind of bait-and-switch.
Nothing personal, but saying people should have known better and purchased FCP7 already is just flawed logic.
Last edited:
It's simply a transfer of time/effort that you seem to be missing.
If they had rewritten FCP to actually work like an update rather than a new application then they would save an uproar, instead of now having to devote developer hours to righting what their core users/consumers are citing as wrongs.
The reception that FCPX would have got would have been warmer if they had tried to walk before they ran.
If Apple called this release Final Cut Express X, and said that FCPX was due in the fall, there would be none of the internet riots that you see over this.
BUT, it is getting FCPX publicity, and there is no such thing as BAD publicity I guess. Name repetition and recognition after all.
BUT, it is getting FCPX publicity, and there is no such thing as BAD publicity I guess. Name repetition and recognition after all.
I'm not just talking about edits, I meant the whole process from start to finish. Right now there are many obstacles in adopting the new FCP X, as the hardware and the workflow is still adapted to the way things are now (obviously). I think that in the future, we won't be exporting anything to tape, for example. Many production companies now work with Canon 5Ds, and the end result is often kept as a simple movie file. This is not the high-end, but I'm saying we're in a transitional phase, which is always a bit annoying. At the end of this phase we'll probably like FCP X a lot more and not only will it have more features, but our hardware will also be adapted to it. It will take some time, and this isn't anyone's fault. Apple just likes to speed things up in a slightly painful way...
And that's fair, since the pros will have to buy new hardware to adapt their workflow, it will be more expensive than just the price of FPC X. Or if we just wait a few years, the new hardware that FCP X "likes" will be commonplace.
FCP X today is not ready for real pro adoption. However, it will be at some point in the future. Until then, it will pave the way for at least some people to adapt to it, at which point the pros will know what they are up against.
I think that this couldn't have happened any differently. Either Apple updates FCP 7, or they do something new. They chose to drop all the stupid things in FCP 7, which, lets admit it, are indeed annoying and stupid, it's just that we're used to it and we don't notice. But of course some things won't work the way they did, but there will be solutions eventually.
no. rewritten fcp with same timeline/editing paradigm makes no sense. it is antiquated by better/faster layout of fcpx.
Care to elaborate on what they dropped that was stupid and annoying?
Most of the things missing from this release are absolute essentials.
Apple's treatment of Pro users has been rather shocking in the past 12 months: discontinuing XServes, depreciating Java without any announcement that Oracle will be picking up future development for weeks, and now FCPX.
Apple have lost touch. No wonder Apple never succeeded in anything but the consumer market. They simply don't understand. Their secrecy has gone too far.
Quite simply, Apple cannot be trusted when it comes to the Pro market.
Apple fail at communications once again; Apple should release an official statement rather than a 3rd party. The comments on his page are interesting.. and they aren't impressed. Pogue does not use FCPX professionally so his review of the product can be taken with a grain of salt. His long article of never ending work arounds comes over as fan-boi-ish.
For example ( his comment ):
Well, yes and no. MUCH of the vitriol about Final Cut began the day of its release--when nobody had actually USED it yet! THAT is a "kneejerk" reaction. (I suspect that most of the commenters here have not used it yet, either.)
Much of the negative comments are constructive and consistent, by people who know what an editing tool should offer. Pogue doesn't use the tool professionally, so he is in no position to review or criticize the feedback.
Apple have lost touch. No wonder Apple never succeeded in anything but the consumer market. They simply don't understand. Their secrecy has gone too far.
Quite simply, Apple cannot be trusted when it comes to the Pro market.
Apple fail at communications once again; Apple should release an official statement rather than a 3rd party. The comments on his page are interesting.. and they aren't impressed. Pogue does not use FCPX professionally so his review of the product can be taken with a grain of salt. His long article of never ending work arounds comes over as fan-boi-ish.
For example ( his comment ):
Well, yes and no. MUCH of the vitriol about Final Cut began the day of its release--when nobody had actually USED it yet! THAT is a "kneejerk" reaction. (I suspect that most of the commenters here have not used it yet, either.)
Much of the negative comments are constructive and consistent, by people who know what an editing tool should offer. Pogue doesn't use the tool professionally, so he is in no position to review or criticize the feedback.
Last edited:
I've been seeing negative reviews everywhere 
, Apple really screwed up with this one, personally I know little to nothing about Final Cut Pro, apart from its editing tool for videos..
But based on what I've seen most people say its suited more towards newbies, but its totally ruined it for professionals
, Apple really screwed up with this one, personally I know little to nothing about Final Cut Pro, apart from its editing tool for videos.. But based on what I've seen most people say its suited more towards newbies, but its totally ruined it for professionals
Just how many of the FCS3 users needed multi cam or even used it just for kicks
Or for that matter most of the big missings
It is not an upgrade, was never addressed as one by Apple. They were firm that it is all new completely rewritten software. And they did so well in advance so anyone that needed to grab a copy of FCS3 before it was gone knew to do it right away. Also anyone will an intermediate or higher knowledge of computers knows that the first release of any software is going to be buggy and probably missing features, especially if it comes from Apple. These are after all the geniuses that gave us a smartphone that couldn't cut/copy and paste.
As for the installing issue, if anyone deleted their FCS they just grab the disks and reinstall. Same with Avid etc. Unless of course they pulled a move like tormenting the software cause they thought it too expensive etc. Guess they will just have to go get it that way again
If I'm not mistaken Randy Ubillos helped develop the early versions of Adobe Premiere before creating the original Final Cut Pro. He's lead the development of Final Cut from 1-7 and now X. So it's not he was dropped into Final Cut Pro out of the blue. Things that people liked about Final Cut Pro 7 can be attributed to him as project leader just as things people don't like about Final Cut Pro X can be attributed to him. Given his knowledge of all things Final Cut, hopefully he's the one to quickly address the issue he's created.
That said, I'm curious why Final Cut Pro X was released now. It just seems like a rushed release. It was released before 10.6.8, which the release notes highly recommend, it was released before Lion, which will reportedly also be very beneficial both performance and feature-wise, and now they are reportedly pushing hard to get an update out to enable multicam support among other missing features. Given all this, would it really have hurt them to have waited 2 months and ship after Lion? That way some of these missing features could have been included at launch. It's not like they made public promises that they have to launch now.
Wow, talk about revisionist history.
Do you realize that every version, ever, of Final Cut was designed by Ubillos? He has been the lead designer/developer of Final Cut since the very start, before Apple even bought it.
And before that, he created the first several versions of Adobe Premiere -- versions 1 and 2 he developed single-handedly.
"This loser" has been a pioneering legend on digital video editing tools for 20 years. All the things you ever thought were wonderful about FCP can on some level be credited to him... so how, exactly, did you "know" you were headed for disaster?
EDIT: Ha! commander.data just beat me to the same basic comment, and he was much nicer and more constructive about it.
I think you are missing my point.
When i say rewrite like an update i mean, provide almost the same functionality but with all the new bells and whistles that FCPX has.
In short, if it ain't broke don't fix it... yes rewrite but rewrite the important features as well as additional new features...
Who are apple to say that they should get rid of important features like EDLs cos they think they are ancient.... they are still part of many professionals workflows so leave them be (in a feature sense, the code will of course need to be rewritten).
It seems almost childish to say 'we don't like it so we are not putting it in!'
Mostly what you have in the magnetic timeline, you always had to reshuffle the entire freaking timeline to make space for a new clip. That was a total waste of time, and that's completely gone now.
You can also now scrub properly without much lag. FCP 7's scrubbing was horribly laggy and mostly useless, even on my pretty cool MacBook Pro.
Having to stop what you're doing while it's rendering is also annoying, that's been fixed now.
Final Cut Pro 7 was made up of 4-5 little windows that worked very badly with minimizing and exposé. To resize your workspace you had to resize every single window and carefully fit them together one by one, that's been fixed as FCP X is a single window.
Having fixed layers for video and sound, to me, was also annoying. You sometimes need lots of layers, something you only need one, it makes sense that FCP X automatically adds and removes them as needed.
FCP 7 also had no visual time stretch, something that Adobe Premiere has had for ages, which is an extremely useful feature when you have audio and video out of sync. FCP X now has that too.
These are what I believe were things that had no place in a modern application in 2011. I'm not saying that due to these getting fixed, FCP X is now better than FCP 7. It's better in many respects, and incomparable in others. I believe that Apple will add the missing features and we'll also have plugins to use soon. In the meantime, use FCP 7 for projects in progress and ones that require stuff that isn't supported in FCP X. However, I believe FCP X will soon make a lot of sense as it's a modern and logical step.