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 Announces Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, and Compressor 4 Available Today
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Quote me. Quote me RIGHT NOW where I actually used words like "all, none".
You can't because I'm always careful about the wording choices.
Ran into this this morning during first tests. Its a must that I work with duplicated files. Of course this is due to the fact that I cant edit an R3DConverting to ProRes (HQ) in REDCineX is freakin fast on a 12core macpro
Well that is a workflow, but than you are stuck with ProRes if using X since there is no EDL to online the files. In FCP 7 you EDL it out an someone does the final online comp in Flame, Smoke, Nuke or software of their choice.
Last year I discovered premiere,, sure converting on a 12 core is fast, but not having to convert and playing 2k files at full speed in premiere is even better, with full raw controls. In the end you have a master file you can output to DPX for color editing and doesn't need an online process.
Final Cut 7 was a solid product from Apple Computer.
Final Cut X is a solid software product from a phone company. It will be big and popular, but removed itself from the pro market. The editing forums are ablaze now, because a lot of people waited for this, and now it can't work in a production workflow, and apple is not a company that gives you a road map of what will happen.
Film makers disagree on the DSLR options because of the quality of DoF, and the lens' they now have access to on smaller budgets, that doesn't negate that it shoots native for YouTube. If anyone thinks that a DSLR is really a contender that can step in the ring with a real professional digital cine camera they need to have their head examined.
And what happens if Fincher cuts his next picture using FCP X? Or the Coens?
Then would people keep saying that "this is just a better iMovie"?
And with that we agree. If Apple are in fact permanently removing crucial pro-features from FCP then they have done something seriously wrong. I haven't been paying enough attention to FCPX, but I was under the impression many think the features pros actually need in their NLE will come. Hopefully that is the case - I can't see why Apple would willingly alienate all the pros using their software.
Oh - I'm sorry - I thought you were the one who kept insinuating that if Larry Jordan said it was a professional app, then it must be true. Oh wait... it was you...
DSLR can't contend with a cine camera, but that doesn't mean you can't shoot professional work using a DSLR. Wasn't "House" finale shot with a DSLR?
Oh - I'm sorry - I thought you were the one who kept insinuating that if Larry Jordan said it was a professional app, then it must be true. Oh wait... it was you...
I never said "If Larry Jordan says so, then it must be".
I said exactly "Then Why does Larry Jordan say otherwise?"
That's your best argument?
A good editor COULD use any software available to them to make a film if they wanted.
That doesn't mean it would be the tool of choice nor would it mean that they wouldn't prefer alternatives.
Citizen Kane wasn't cut with any digital software and is brilliant.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. Yes - FCPX can be used to edit. And I am sure it can do a marvelous job too. But again, that doesn't mean it's better (now) or as useful/powerful (now) as other programs - including the previous version of FCP. That's all.
Stop taking it so personally as if you are one of the FCPX programmers who is defending their coding. Unless you are...
Currently at HD and no more. Just cause we have RED MX dont mean were doing "Social Network 2: Revenge of the Twins"
We spent years cutting it with MXF using an XDCAM. When were ready to cut to film, we will deal with what flavor is out then. Most of our edits are on Avid MC. Can you see why Im diggin the new FCPX
You have proved my point, which was that it's nonsense when people say things like "this is not ready for professional use".
The correct argument always should be "this is not ready for my professional use".
I'm not taking anything personally. I simply hate when people put dumb stuff out there. I criticize a stupid argument wherever I see one, be it for or against Apple.
Are you implying that people who use such tools do it on a dare from the studio or friends?
yes it was, and they had an ass-load of grip equipment to control the light so that skin tones didn't clip, and to control the myriad of other problems with the camera. given enough equipment Steven Spielberg could shoot something great on a Flip camera. But I'm the guy who deals with the jackhole producer who reads about house and then wants to shoot a indie feature that doesn't even have 1/4 the budget that House has for its catering spreads!
In the old FCP you could apply transitions to images you had in the timeline. I can't seem to find any way of doing this in FCPX, anyone had any luck or know how to?
I would love to know why you're so adamant about defending the release (to date).
I didn't prove anything other in regards to FCPX being ready for professionals or not. As you can see on this thread alone there are quite a few that could not (or would not) use FCPX for their professional projects based on the current release. And this is only a small microcosm of the real world.
As you said before, and I agreed - the true test isn't today's commentary. Let's see what's being done/said/critiqued/added/still missing in 2-4 months from now.
FCPX might be a professional editing program. But that doesn't mean it's an editing program for all professionals. And that's ok. And you should be ok with people asserting that. Even if you programmed the whole thing yourself
I haven't been defending anything. I'm arguing against people's generalizing opinions which they try to feed everyone like they are the final authority.
I have written here what Larry Jordan has basically said about the app after 6 weeks of use. That this app is not ready for prime time, that there are many things missing, and that soon those features will come back and everyone will be using this. Some will get on board right away if everything they need is in this package, and the rest will follow later. If that's "defending" an app, then yes I'm guilty as charged.
FCPX might be a professional editing program. But that doesn't mean it's an editing program for all professionals. And that's ok. And you should be ok with people asserting that. Even if you programmed the whole thing yourself
That's the exact argument I have written 20 times today on this thread.
Well Id like to say that its a decent app from what Ive tested. It seems the whole internet made such a big deal about it that they forget most of us pro users have more than one NLE at their disposal. It does the job its suppose to do so far but not a pro job for most.
Obvious things like, why start a time sensitive project on it or why cant I use all my plug-ins blah blah...Jeez even Adobe plug-ins have to be updated most of the time and thats a freakin pain.
Its just an app folks, its not cancer medicine
Is it me or did a few people miss the thing apple said from the start "This is a 1.0 release compared to the very first 1.0 of Final cut"
This is the bottom of the pizza and after playing around for a bit I say it is a very crispy crust... I'm ready for the toppings mr. apple, make mine a quatro edizione with multicameo a la bolognese.
This is the bottom of the pizza and after playing around for a bit I say it is a very crispy crust... I'm ready for the toppings mr. apple, make mine a quatro edizione with multicameo a la bolognese.
But not really. Not in intention. What you're not (seemingly) admitting is that those that are negative towards FCPX and make the comment that it's not a professional app are doing so because the app isn't complete.
You keep protesting that the app is professional.
Let me draw a poor analogy (I'm admitting it's probably poor upfront)
I buy a professional race car - but at the time of purchase it doesn't have a speedometer, has a hole in the gas tank, a few windows are missing and the trunk won't open.
Is the car a professional racecar. In theory - sure. Is it usable as a professional race car? Not really. Not in its current form.
So those saying the app isn't for professionals aren't any less wrong than those saying that it is. It's all perspective and use case. Both parties are right and both parties are wrong.
WOW! Great prices, motion itself cant really be used on its own for motion graphics but some of the ready made animations are great for the industry. My studio is definitely going to upgrade.
Perspective in definitions is a no go. When someone says that an app is not professional, due to the definition of a professional app, he means that no professional work can be done on this app. Or at least that's what I understand from it.
If they clarify further that what they mean is, it's not suitable for their professional work, I have nothing against that. But they don't and their wording exactly means that "this is not for ANY professional out there". Nobody seems to make their argument personal and generalize immediately.
About your analogy, I'd say it's not the poorest analogy I've seen but if you consider the functions, I'd say it's poor. You cannot use the car you described as a race car. In addition to that, no race driver can use that as a race car.
But FCPX as it stands today can be used by "some" professionals to do their work. I hope we agree on this.