I noticed this as well. I was in the 5th Avenue Apple Store here in NYC and of the machines I were able to get in front of, none of them had X installed. I wasn't able to check the Mac Pro, granted, some idiot was on there too busy playing Uno and seemed pretty adamant about finishing his game.
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 Posts Final Cut Pro X FAQ, Promises Updates
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I noticed this as well. I was in the 5th Avenue Apple Store here in NYC and of the machines I were able to get in front of, none of them had X installed. I wasn't able to check the Mac Pro, granted, some idiot was on there too busy playing Uno and seemed pretty adamant about finishing his game.
But when Apple previews their new software at NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) and says, "FCPX is awesome! You'll love it!", can't you see how those users might be surprised at all the features that weren't included?
Expensive?
I'm a professional editor--primarily independent features and docs. I've had the opportunity to test drive a fellow editor's copy of FCPX and there IS a lot to like about the app, and I am optimistic about the future...
However, Apple's FAQ leaves me a little distressed and frustrated as it seems that they are turning over specific pro-centric functions such as OMF and XML export and EDL support to third parties.
FCPX sells for $299, but they have chosen to not implement certain pro functions for the 1.0 release in favor of third parties providing, for a price, that which they used to offer as "free" in earlier versions of FCP.
Automatic Duck is charging $495 for the ability to export an OMF from FCPX, and at present, OMF export is the ONLY thing AD's software currently does for FCPX--round robin to Avid and AE isn't even supported yet--only in FCP 7. If I buy AD's export sw, I am slowly and surely edging closer to the cost of the ENTIRE FCP Studio 3 suite of apps, particularly if I have to shell out even more money for separate XML and EDL support.
Frustrating, to say the least, and hard on those of us whose margins are tighter than bigger shops. I want to be supportive, but I feel like I have been given a bit of a kiss-off.
I'm a professional editor--primarily independent features and docs. I've had the opportunity to test drive a fellow editor's copy of FCPX and there IS a lot to like about the app, and I am optimistic about the future...
However, Apple's FAQ leaves me a little distressed and frustrated as it seems that they are turning over specific pro-centric functions such as OMF and XML export and EDL support to third parties.
FCPX sells for $299, but they have chosen to not implement certain pro functions for the 1.0 release in favor of third parties providing, for a price, that which they used to offer as "free" in earlier versions of FCP.
Automatic Duck is charging $495 for the ability to export an OMF from FCPX, and at present, OMF export is the ONLY thing AD's software currently does for FCPX--round robin to Avid and AE isn't even supported yet--only in FCP 7. If I buy AD's export sw, I am slowly and surely edging closer to the cost of the ENTIRE FCP Studio 3 suite of apps, particularly if I have to shell out even more money for separate XML and EDL support.
Frustrating, to say the least, and hard on those of us whose margins are tighter than bigger shops. I want to be supportive, but I feel like I have been given a bit of a kiss-off.
I think you might not be that familiar with this kind of post-production workflow. The editor of a feature film or broadcast TV show does not do the color or final sound mixing because he or she spends all their time cutting. Other people, with specialized skill sets, do those jobs concurrently because the volume of work, schedule and budget necessitate it. Therefore it is absolutely critical that the editing software be able to spit out EDLs, OMFs, etc. so others can do their jobs and the project can get finished. Please don't dismiss these editors as "not-so-good professionals". Think of it like a baseball team; everyone plays a position because that's what they are good at.
Honest question: Twelve seats is too few to fall under the 20+ volume license requirement. What was your process to get everything installed? Thanks.
If there is indeed a big market for these things, I'm very sure other companies will come in and push the price on these sorts of add-ons. Almost twice the price of the editing-app for the ability to send stuff to Pro Tools or whatever you use it for seems strange. Then again, I've used FCP for a long long time without ever needing OMF, AAF or EDL, so maybe these things are indeed niche requirements that makes sense to leave out of the basic package. I for one really don't have any particular desire to pay for it, and the high-end pros that really need it can certainly afford to pay for some of these things, given how low the price for FCP X is now.
I also think it makes sense for Apple to focus on current/modern technologies, as both OMF and EDL as far as I have understood it is pretty archaic (even if many still use it)?
No doubt, division of labour sure has it's place in the larger companies. That being said, it's awesome that people get tools that makes it easier to do more on their own. How many professions were involved with making printed material 20-30 years ago? Quite a few! Now the competent designer with a background in typography etc. can do most of it himself. Sure, the images were probably a little better handled when we had specialized repro technicians (directly translated from the norwegian title, don't know what they were called in english). The tools and spread of knowledge has however led to a situation where one person can perform what was previously several distinct professions to a satisfactory degree. There will always be some need for the best specialists, though, both because some projects require top quality, and because large scale projects benefit from the division of labour.
Last edited:
The phrase 'Jack of all trades... Master of none' springs to mind here. In the broadcast and feature industry the best person for the job tends to get the work, not the one who can do a little of everything (unless budgets are tight).
Agreed. But, some of those trades were trades solely because of technical/technological reasons/restraints. When development removes those restraints, people can master more trades without that necessarily leading to them being "master of none".
It's a misconception that only high-end pros need such features. For example, I recently finished a 'no-budget' documentary and used both XMLs and OMFs to collaborate w/another editor and a sound mixer. And with technology today it's easier to collaborate with people near and far. My sound mixer and I used DropBox to pass media back and fourth even though we were in the same city. I worked on an ultra low budget feature that had the post production (editing, color grading, audio mixing, VFX, & opening GFX) split up between LA, Detroit and India! At a time when the internet is allowing people to work together over greater distances than ever before it's a shame that Apple has chosen launch FCP X as a 'closed' workflow application.
XML is modern and Apple left out support. RED is modern and Apple left out support. Other companies are adding support for new tech w/o dropping support for current tech. It's not either/or situation. And just because something is old doesn't mean it needs to get replaced. I don't think steering wheels should be replaced by steering triangles just because the wheel is archaic.
Lethal
Well, those pain killers are messing with your ability to keep things straight. You have your acronyms backwards. WTF does FPC stand for? For the record, it's not FPC X or FPC 7. Perhaps you should spell out the whole name to avoid confusing yourself?
It's a misconception that only high-end pros need such features. For example, I recently finished a 'no-budget' documentary and used both XMLs and OMFs to collaborate w/another editor and a sound mixer. And with technology today it's easier to collaborate with people near and far. My sound mixer and I used DropBox to pass media back and fourth even though we were in the same city. I worked on an ultra low budget feature that had the post production (editing, color grading, audio mixing, VFX, & opening GFX) split up between LA, Detroit and India! At a time when the internet is allowing people to work together over greater distances than ever before it's a shame that Apple has chosen launch FCP X as a 'closed' workflow application.
XML is modern and Apple left out support. RED is modern and Apple left out support. Other companies are adding support for new tech w/o dropping support for current tech. It's not either/or situation. And just because something is old doesn't mean it needs to get replaced. I don't think steering wheels should be replaced by steering triangles just because the wheel is archaic.
Lethal
I was under the impression that Apple has built in the framework for XML, with hooks and all. The API is just about ready, and this close to launch, I'd consider that an ok effort actually .
I fully agree we have to be able to communicate with others. XML takes care of that. OMF/EDL does not have to be built directly in by Apple if they provide other options, and they also provide the options for others to provide the functionality.
Yes, they could have built it in - but I can't say I'm very disappointed by them not doing so since they have the XML-framework in place.
Apple dropping Flash was a big bomb for everyone (especially for me as a graphic design doing work for web, much of it previously in Flash), but I appreciate what they did, and how they have actually changed the landscape to a large degree - in my opinion to the better by getting rid of a lot of unnecessary Flash. Not that it pertains to this exactly, just saying that these kinds of breaks can be more than an omission by Apple - they can be consciously trying to lead the way a bit. (While still leaving the "dirt-road of archaic standards" (yes, partly kidding.
) open for those that still need it.)Nope, I didn't miss it. Guess I must have selective attention and only chose to pay attention to what I "wanted" to read.
Fact of the matter remains, whether it's difficult or not, can you show me where and when before the release of FCPX and the discontinuation of FCP7 that people were informed that there would be no project compatibility? XML or EDL?
I couldn't be bothered to post that earlier as I think people will choose to igonore it but thanks
Again, the fact's are it has "replaced" a program that did have these features. If they didn't eol FCP7 I wouldn't have this problem and I wouldn't argue with you. But the problem is they did eol it and as far as I'm concerned that makes this release incomplete and premature.
And our students do still shoot film. Try as we might to steer them away from it, they still want to use it. Admittedly some don't care too much and only get a 1 light telecine transfer to Mini DV but others are now getting their films back as Pro Res files.
SiskoKid, the problem is we're on FCP6 at work and try as we might we cannot now get FCP7 as we're obligated to only purchase things that have an official line of support. We're not about to remove FCP6 but it means we cannot really teach it as it would be negligent of us to teach software that is now redundant - the new interface and workflow in FCPX is too different. Those of us that know how to use it will continue to use it but we cannot and will not teach it to anybody new. Apple has hurt us and it could well hurt our students.
There is no reason a 1.0 product has to 'pragmatically' be released with a subset of features. It is simply a choice by the developer.
It appears Apple chose to leave some features (OMF, AAF, and EDL, others?) for third party developers to do. In at least two cases, XML & plug-in support, they released the product too early. Given that Apple claims in their own FAQ that XML support is within a few weeks of delivery, there is no reason they could not have delayed the release of FCPX a month or more. They also could have worked with many third party developers to give FCPX a better kick start.
I think you just illustrated how Apple has snubbed many professional editors/shops. Their software alone isn't complete - or even as close to complete - as their previous version. That and the price point is very telling as to what market they are going after. As you said yourself - big shops can probably afford the additional plug-ins (other smaller shops might not be able to though) - and that brings the price for the "suite" back to original costs. So no savings + having to worry about software updates from various 3rd parties/Apple to keep things working.
As of now - Apple stripped down functionality and made things "pretty" for "the masses" - not professionals. I don't begrudge a company trying to make money or creating products to expand their marketshare, etc. But they could have done that in a myriad of ways instead (even in name only) without slighting the professional community.
I agree - and I'll add that this is very similar to how they've handled iOS. Granted iOS was new a few years ago - but was launched with some basic functionality not included (IE cut/paste) and most recently, with the specs of iOS 5.0 - its customers are finally getting functionality that has been developed by 3rd party vendors who "paved the way" for Apple. Meaning - several additions over the iOS's development have come from Apple seeing 3rd party vendor's successes and incorporating them. And when they do - they announce it as if it's manna from heaven.
Last edited:
Saw this post over at Creative Cow. Thought it was worth reposting here:
Looks like the PC fanbois were right after all...
by James Poll on Jun 29, 2011 at 11:03:16 pm
I never really believed it, and always argued against it, but after the release of this schizophrenic gene-spliced mutation of iMovie and Final Cut Pro, and Apple's abandonment of the Pro market and its inhabitants, it seems that all those PC fanbois were right after all:
Apple is nothing more than a toy company, making shiny toys for people with too much money to burn.
Maybe - one day - FCP X will get back to being able to do what FCP 7 can do right now, but I doubt it. If it does, it will be no thanks to Apple, as they seem to have left it up to Third parties to do all the work for them, while they embark on a course to seemingly dumb down the actual Mac OS itself (turning OS X into "iOS Pro" - but that's another discussion we'll have to get into after Lion comes out).
One thing that really concerns me is that if Apple decides that the Pro market has bailed on them for good, then there will be no incentive for them to even continue offering the "promised upgrades" or to improve the system for Pro users. All they'll care about is making sure that it's super-easy for Johnny Amateur to upload his self-important video about head lice to YouTube.
What a terrible week this has been - and not just for Apple or the Post Production community, but also for the Mac community. There's been a lot of bile thrown at Apple this past week (and justifiably so, IMHO), but we've also seen an awful fracture in the Mac community itself, what with all the "young minds, fresh ideas" people complaining that all the Pros are old luddites who can't handle change, etc. It really is sad to see. Here I was thinking what a great community we had - full of people devoted to the Mac, but after this past week and seeing all the infighting and outfighting, one really begins to wonder why one bothers at all. I do realize that I'm generalizing when I say that, and that there are a lot of dedicated and helpful souls around, but does anyone else find this bickering just so utterly depressing? (And I am aware of the irony of me posting this depressing, bickering message complaining about depressing and bickering messages... so no need to point that out to me!)
Oh well, that's my $0.02 for what it's worth... Back to work with FCP 7 (on self-arranged dual displays, connected with fibre-channel to Promise RAID, using XML import for bins and OMF export for audio, HD scopes and Kona LHe for monitoring to a professional display)! Really Apple, *What were you thinking??*
P.S. Aindreas Gallagher, please keep writing your spleen-venting posts here... Your sense of wit really lightens up my day !
Looks like the PC fanbois were right after all...
by James Poll on Jun 29, 2011 at 11:03:16 pm
I never really believed it, and always argued against it, but after the release of this schizophrenic gene-spliced mutation of iMovie and Final Cut Pro, and Apple's abandonment of the Pro market and its inhabitants, it seems that all those PC fanbois were right after all:
Apple is nothing more than a toy company, making shiny toys for people with too much money to burn.
Maybe - one day - FCP X will get back to being able to do what FCP 7 can do right now, but I doubt it. If it does, it will be no thanks to Apple, as they seem to have left it up to Third parties to do all the work for them, while they embark on a course to seemingly dumb down the actual Mac OS itself (turning OS X into "iOS Pro" - but that's another discussion we'll have to get into after Lion comes out).
One thing that really concerns me is that if Apple decides that the Pro market has bailed on them for good, then there will be no incentive for them to even continue offering the "promised upgrades" or to improve the system for Pro users. All they'll care about is making sure that it's super-easy for Johnny Amateur to upload his self-important video about head lice to YouTube.
What a terrible week this has been - and not just for Apple or the Post Production community, but also for the Mac community. There's been a lot of bile thrown at Apple this past week (and justifiably so, IMHO), but we've also seen an awful fracture in the Mac community itself, what with all the "young minds, fresh ideas" people complaining that all the Pros are old luddites who can't handle change, etc. It really is sad to see. Here I was thinking what a great community we had - full of people devoted to the Mac, but after this past week and seeing all the infighting and outfighting, one really begins to wonder why one bothers at all. I do realize that I'm generalizing when I say that, and that there are a lot of dedicated and helpful souls around, but does anyone else find this bickering just so utterly depressing? (And I am aware of the irony of me posting this depressing, bickering message complaining about depressing and bickering messages... so no need to point that out to me!)
Oh well, that's my $0.02 for what it's worth... Back to work with FCP 7 (on self-arranged dual displays, connected with fibre-channel to Promise RAID, using XML import for bins and OMF export for audio, HD scopes and Kona LHe for monitoring to a professional display)! Really Apple, *What were you thinking??*
P.S. Aindreas Gallagher, please keep writing your spleen-venting posts here... Your sense of wit really lightens up my day !
The thing with iOS was there was no alternative or prior version so people couldn't really complain about missing features as there wasn't anything taken away from them. I think we're on a pretty similar wavelength though.
Taking a Step Back
I'm going to try an take a step back here. I'm an Art Director, Graphic & Web Designer who only has to take the occasional dip into video work. So I can't speak as an Edit Pro, but I'd like to speak up for the pros, and Creative Pros in general.
What I have seen is something of a split in the opinions about FCP X and about the Professional response to it. But judging from the ... for lack of a better term... "tech level" of some of the comments, a lot of folk don't really understand what the Pro Edit community is up in arms about. Some folk seem to feel that they are a whiny minority, and to stop whining and "get with the program." And Hey, FC7 still works, right? And Apple is sure to get features back in updates, so keep your panties on.
All reasonable opinions. But in many cases uninformed.
What the pros are so upset about is that a not a few, but a raft, of key features were excised from FCP X, including several individual features, the absence of any one of make it literally unusuable in the current commercial post industry in it's present form. While there is a lot to like in FCP X in UI, evolved features, media handling, sync, effects, etc, I'd have to say that the Pros still have good reason to be upset.
Using FCP7 is of course still an option. An aging, out of date, sluggish application, stuck in 32-bit, beginning to compare poorly to it's competition, still sorely in need of an upgrade. FCP X is quite obviously not that upgrade, it's an entirely different program.
Apple's viewpoint was made clear by making those choices, and also EOL'ing FCP 7 and FCS, making them orphan, unsupported products. So sure, still use them, but you're on your own. The fact that "import from iMovie" is an option, but not from FCP7 indicates where Apple is pitching this product. The Pros feel they were sold a bill of goods, when Apple promised them an "awesome" update. It's pretty slick, but for the majority of working pro's useless, while for folks like me, it's exciting and looks slick as a greased weasel on a water slide.
As for tape, trust me, most pros would LOVE for tape to go the hell away. Tape is a pain in the A**. But a huge swatch of those Professionals' CLIENTS, and we're talking agencies, studios, broadcasters, producers and the like, INSIST on tape as deliverables. When you tell a client, "no, I can't do that," they NEVER CALL YOU AGAIN. EVER. Much of the same thing applies to the other bits like EDL, XML, OMF, External Broadcast Monitors, Multicam, Audio Tracks... ALL of them put FCP X in the "Fail" category for Pros.
There is a particularly well-thought look at the Final Cut Pro X thing by Adam Lisagor, worth a read for a "Big Picture" perspective.
http://lonelysandwich.com/post/7033868135/fcp-the-new-class
He posits that Apple has something else entirely on it's mind...
"Has Apple done this because they wanted to dominate the pro editing market? Why would they do that? Well, to sell hardware, I guess. But why else? Hows this: to sell content. I will speculate that Final Cut Pro has just ceased to be about the craft of editing because Apple has little interest in the craft of editing. I will argue that Apple has a giant interest in the craft of distributing, of publishing. This is where it aims to enable an entirely new market of content built on its new infrastructure. YouTube is a distribution platform that has changed the world by changing the face of media by changing the mechanisms for distribution. Apple aims to do the same by positioning itself as the de facto tool for content generation and distribution, content which will in turn benefit its distribution method for external content. Apple created iTunes first as a tool for collecting ones own media, and THEN evolved into a platform for distributing external media (very valuable content) through the store. With Final Cut Pro X, Apple aims to establish a platform through which users can generate content internally and therefore become even more accustomed/adaptable to the mechanisms of media consumption. "
Interesting, if that's indeed the case. But it IS sho' 'nuff Thinking Different. No doubt.
Pros feel that they are betrayed, as Apple essentially CREATED the Final Cut infrastructure, and promised THE PROS good things in an "awesome" upgrade at NAB. There is a great loss of trust now, and more at stake than small indie and home studios, with huge investments in gear and massive media libraries. And Apple stands to lose many of these guys. Adobe and Avid are still out there, and many more competing tools on the PC side. Well, "good riddance to those uptight whiners," you may say? Not so fast.
"You know how many licenses of FCP Murch and Cold Mountain sold? Millions. Know how many licenses the most beautifully-crafted, tastefully-shot home movie of your family trip to Lake Havasu will sell? ******* all." - Adam Lisagor
Jus' sayin'.
But we Creative Pros in the Design and Publishing community have been here before, and were among the folk who looked at last year's Mac Pro Update with a resounding "Meh." We've been marginalized for a while as Apple dives into it's headlong pursuit of the mass market user. The Mac Pro is now the last in the upgrade cycle, but I can recall when Mac towers were first to get the shiny. But as a Design pro, I don't spend hardly ANY time in the closed ecosystem of Apple's iApps, but at least 85% of my professional day in Adobe Design Applications.
http://www.fantastic-realities.com/studio_blog/2010/08/mac-pros-mac-users/
http://brookwillard.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/the-state-of-apples-professional-line/
What ever you may think of FCP X, Apple without a doubt mishandled this release. And considering how they handled the OS 9 to X and Power PC to Intel transitions, we all KNOW they could have done better. They may be giving an awesome tool to the masses, hobbyists, amateurs, indie studios, but it was a resounding Brooklyn Cheer to the Pros who put FC on the map, especially with yanking FCP7 and FCS.
And here's something, many Edit Pros already have some flavor of Adobe CS - Production Premium, Master Collection, what-have-you, which they got to get Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, After Effects... etc.
... so a good bunch of them already have Premire Pro installed on their machines. The purple "Pr" box just sitting there on the dock, a click away. Waiting.
Hello.
I'm going to try an take a step back here. I'm an Art Director, Graphic & Web Designer who only has to take the occasional dip into video work. So I can't speak as an Edit Pro, but I'd like to speak up for the pros, and Creative Pros in general.
What I have seen is something of a split in the opinions about FCP X and about the Professional response to it. But judging from the ... for lack of a better term... "tech level" of some of the comments, a lot of folk don't really understand what the Pro Edit community is up in arms about. Some folk seem to feel that they are a whiny minority, and to stop whining and "get with the program." And Hey, FC7 still works, right? And Apple is sure to get features back in updates, so keep your panties on.
All reasonable opinions. But in many cases uninformed.
What the pros are so upset about is that a not a few, but a raft, of key features were excised from FCP X, including several individual features, the absence of any one of make it literally unusuable in the current commercial post industry in it's present form. While there is a lot to like in FCP X in UI, evolved features, media handling, sync, effects, etc, I'd have to say that the Pros still have good reason to be upset.
Using FCP7 is of course still an option. An aging, out of date, sluggish application, stuck in 32-bit, beginning to compare poorly to it's competition, still sorely in need of an upgrade. FCP X is quite obviously not that upgrade, it's an entirely different program.
Apple's viewpoint was made clear by making those choices, and also EOL'ing FCP 7 and FCS, making them orphan, unsupported products. So sure, still use them, but you're on your own. The fact that "import from iMovie" is an option, but not from FCP7 indicates where Apple is pitching this product. The Pros feel they were sold a bill of goods, when Apple promised them an "awesome" update. It's pretty slick, but for the majority of working pro's useless, while for folks like me, it's exciting and looks slick as a greased weasel on a water slide.
As for tape, trust me, most pros would LOVE for tape to go the hell away. Tape is a pain in the A**. But a huge swatch of those Professionals' CLIENTS, and we're talking agencies, studios, broadcasters, producers and the like, INSIST on tape as deliverables. When you tell a client, "no, I can't do that," they NEVER CALL YOU AGAIN. EVER. Much of the same thing applies to the other bits like EDL, XML, OMF, External Broadcast Monitors, Multicam, Audio Tracks... ALL of them put FCP X in the "Fail" category for Pros.
There is a particularly well-thought look at the Final Cut Pro X thing by Adam Lisagor, worth a read for a "Big Picture" perspective.
http://lonelysandwich.com/post/7033868135/fcp-the-new-class
He posits that Apple has something else entirely on it's mind...
"Has Apple done this because they wanted to dominate the pro editing market? Why would they do that? Well, to sell hardware, I guess. But why else? Hows this: to sell content. I will speculate that Final Cut Pro has just ceased to be about the craft of editing because Apple has little interest in the craft of editing. I will argue that Apple has a giant interest in the craft of distributing, of publishing. This is where it aims to enable an entirely new market of content built on its new infrastructure. YouTube is a distribution platform that has changed the world by changing the face of media by changing the mechanisms for distribution. Apple aims to do the same by positioning itself as the de facto tool for content generation and distribution, content which will in turn benefit its distribution method for external content. Apple created iTunes first as a tool for collecting ones own media, and THEN evolved into a platform for distributing external media (very valuable content) through the store. With Final Cut Pro X, Apple aims to establish a platform through which users can generate content internally and therefore become even more accustomed/adaptable to the mechanisms of media consumption. "
Interesting, if that's indeed the case. But it IS sho' 'nuff Thinking Different. No doubt.
Pros feel that they are betrayed, as Apple essentially CREATED the Final Cut infrastructure, and promised THE PROS good things in an "awesome" upgrade at NAB. There is a great loss of trust now, and more at stake than small indie and home studios, with huge investments in gear and massive media libraries. And Apple stands to lose many of these guys. Adobe and Avid are still out there, and many more competing tools on the PC side. Well, "good riddance to those uptight whiners," you may say? Not so fast.
"You know how many licenses of FCP Murch and Cold Mountain sold? Millions. Know how many licenses the most beautifully-crafted, tastefully-shot home movie of your family trip to Lake Havasu will sell? ******* all." - Adam Lisagor
Jus' sayin'.
But we Creative Pros in the Design and Publishing community have been here before, and were among the folk who looked at last year's Mac Pro Update with a resounding "Meh." We've been marginalized for a while as Apple dives into it's headlong pursuit of the mass market user. The Mac Pro is now the last in the upgrade cycle, but I can recall when Mac towers were first to get the shiny. But as a Design pro, I don't spend hardly ANY time in the closed ecosystem of Apple's iApps, but at least 85% of my professional day in Adobe Design Applications.
http://www.fantastic-realities.com/studio_blog/2010/08/mac-pros-mac-users/
http://brookwillard.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/the-state-of-apples-professional-line/
What ever you may think of FCP X, Apple without a doubt mishandled this release. And considering how they handled the OS 9 to X and Power PC to Intel transitions, we all KNOW they could have done better. They may be giving an awesome tool to the masses, hobbyists, amateurs, indie studios, but it was a resounding Brooklyn Cheer to the Pros who put FC on the map, especially with yanking FCP7 and FCS.
And here's something, many Edit Pros already have some flavor of Adobe CS - Production Premium, Master Collection, what-have-you, which they got to get Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, After Effects... etc.
... so a good bunch of them already have Premire Pro installed on their machines. The purple "Pr" box just sitting there on the dock, a click away. Waiting.
Hello.
I'd noticed that as well, and touched upon it in my post. There's been a definite thread of "this is so cutting edge and cool! If you old whiners can't see it then ****** off!"
If I actually was a proper luddite, I'd still be shoving a T-Square across my drafting table.
Thanks for your calmer perspective.
And how are you color correcting those on air packages? How do you have the external monitor set up? Wait! Your using the on board CC in FC, and no external monitor aren't you?
Can I have ten minutes alone with your clients?
Larry Jordan on FCPX
http://www.larryjordan.biz/goodies/blog.html
Larrys Blog
Requiem for a Friend
Posted by Larry on June 30, 2011
My email has been filled with such a sense of loss in recent days; a deeply loved member of the family died unexpectedly before their time.
Such a loss. What a waste. So unnecessary. They will be missed.
The words are meant well, but they dont assuage the hurt.
They are gone, and theyre never coming back.
- -
I tears my heart to read emails from people who built their lives around something only suddenly to discover its gone. What do you do when the center of your life is missing?
What can I possible say that will comfort them? Mere words seem so inadequate.
- -
The silence, after the fact, is deafening. No reassurance, no apology, no remorse. Building for the future! Good times are still to come! Not really that important. Phrases that ring insincere and hollow at this moment of pain. At the depth of whats missing. At the depth of whats been done.
How can you love again when your heart is missing?
- -
Clearly, this is not a time to give up. To sink into the black oblivion of self-destructive what-ifs. There is still hope for the future though at the moment that is sometimes hard to see.
In two years, Im sure, well be past this. In two years, Im sure, well look back on this as a bad memory. In two years, Im sure, well say that things are better. But they wont be the same.
Because we still need to live through the next two years.
- -
When someone we love dies, we move on. We make new friends. And we discover those who have been with us a long time to whom we have not properly paid attention. We continue our lives, and attempt to rebuild.
But that does not deny the sadness, the anger, and the loss. Or the memories of what was.
And it was so unnecessary.
Larry
http://www.larryjordan.biz/goodies/blog.html
Larrys Blog
Requiem for a Friend
Posted by Larry on June 30, 2011
My email has been filled with such a sense of loss in recent days; a deeply loved member of the family died unexpectedly before their time.
Such a loss. What a waste. So unnecessary. They will be missed.
The words are meant well, but they dont assuage the hurt.
They are gone, and theyre never coming back.
- -
I tears my heart to read emails from people who built their lives around something only suddenly to discover its gone. What do you do when the center of your life is missing?
What can I possible say that will comfort them? Mere words seem so inadequate.
- -
The silence, after the fact, is deafening. No reassurance, no apology, no remorse. Building for the future! Good times are still to come! Not really that important. Phrases that ring insincere and hollow at this moment of pain. At the depth of whats missing. At the depth of whats been done.
How can you love again when your heart is missing?
- -
Clearly, this is not a time to give up. To sink into the black oblivion of self-destructive what-ifs. There is still hope for the future though at the moment that is sometimes hard to see.
In two years, Im sure, well be past this. In two years, Im sure, well look back on this as a bad memory. In two years, Im sure, well say that things are better. But they wont be the same.
Because we still need to live through the next two years.
- -
When someone we love dies, we move on. We make new friends. And we discover those who have been with us a long time to whom we have not properly paid attention. We continue our lives, and attempt to rebuild.
But that does not deny the sadness, the anger, and the loss. Or the memories of what was.
And it was so unnecessary.
Larry
"Pro" define that? This term is being thrown around way to much without much needed clarification. Pro: Editor... Designer.... Producer... etc? Different professionals can have drastically different needs. Being a professional has nothing to do with what hardware/software you use it's who you are and what you do.
I was trained on Final Cut however I was never a fan of the interface, there were times when I needed to make a quick project (We have a meeting in an hour and we need a video.. no problem right?) and I would just pop into iMovie throw it together and no one would know/care because IT GOT DONE. In reality at the end of the day it's not what tool that you use but the finished product delivered on time in budget that matters, the software needs to do what it's ment to do and then get out of the way. Either Final Cut Pro X works and helps the "Profesional" get his job done or I'm sure they will find a way or use another program, it's not the software that is "Professional" it's the person using it.
Apple just released a program that will enable 95% of video editors make great videos, however to make their timeline to release it so the 95% could have great new features like 64bit/multicore they had to put a few features on the side burner or cut them altogether. Yes they left that 5% hanging without support and they may loose some of them but they made a program that works well for the majority and is a great foundation for the future. Nothing is stopping someone from just using FCP7 until FCPX has the missing features/plugins/3rd party support that or switching to another platform/software altogether.
With this new version I was editing 1080p Video clips with multiple effects on my 1.4ghz Macbook Air 11in in REAL TIME. I would say the new Final Cut Pro is a huge success.
Some of you may not have been around about ten years ago when Apple transitioned from os9 to OSX.. I remember the uproar back then! "my drivers dont work" my printer is not supported" my apps don't work! I NEEED THESE CLASSIC OS9 - OS8 APPS TO WORK APPLE YOU'RE KILLING US MY BUSINESS WILL DIE!!!!... And somehow they did not die.. they got by, converted and realized that the new system was a millions times better than os9 once it had time to mature. I think many of these same people are the ones complaining about Final Cut Pro X now. It's only been a week, you need to give Apple and third party developers time to build it out the features and support. Apple tore down the old house to make this new version but left the inside with bare walls that will be built piece by piece over the next 10 years and i'm sure they gut it and tear down the house again when it's time.
The same people who throw around the term "Pro" to prop up their ego's are the ones who would buy $6000 speaker cable because "it sounds better" even though an engineer would tell you that any quality same gauge copper wire will have the exact same physical properties/sound.
So what's my point? Elitism.
Every now and then I will run into a designer who went to a boutique Art School and will sit there trying to give me Pantone spot colors that will make the job cost $20,000 more because their artistic sense tells them they need to act like Martha Stuart and pick from "designer colors" You have 10,000,000 colors to choose from and you want to use "obtuse beige" because it "feels better" that regular old beige. These are the people in this forum pretending to be "Pros" while putting down other people because they "don't get it" I'll tell you when these types of people come to work for me they become humble when their elitist world view crumbles as they see real professionals working on real projects.
About Me: I'm an Art Director for an Advertising Company During my daily duties I may (but not limited to): Use CS5 Indesign, Photoshop, Premier, etc. Cinema 4d, FCP, Manage servers, php/mysql/html/css, product photography, iphone/ipad programing.
I was trained on Final Cut however I was never a fan of the interface, there were times when I needed to make a quick project (We have a meeting in an hour and we need a video.. no problem right?) and I would just pop into iMovie throw it together and no one would know/care because IT GOT DONE. In reality at the end of the day it's not what tool that you use but the finished product delivered on time in budget that matters, the software needs to do what it's ment to do and then get out of the way. Either Final Cut Pro X works and helps the "Profesional" get his job done or I'm sure they will find a way or use another program, it's not the software that is "Professional" it's the person using it.
Apple just released a program that will enable 95% of video editors make great videos, however to make their timeline to release it so the 95% could have great new features like 64bit/multicore they had to put a few features on the side burner or cut them altogether. Yes they left that 5% hanging without support and they may loose some of them but they made a program that works well for the majority and is a great foundation for the future. Nothing is stopping someone from just using FCP7 until FCPX has the missing features/plugins/3rd party support that or switching to another platform/software altogether.
With this new version I was editing 1080p Video clips with multiple effects on my 1.4ghz Macbook Air 11in in REAL TIME. I would say the new Final Cut Pro is a huge success.
Some of you may not have been around about ten years ago when Apple transitioned from os9 to OSX.. I remember the uproar back then! "my drivers dont work" my printer is not supported" my apps don't work! I NEEED THESE CLASSIC OS9 - OS8 APPS TO WORK APPLE YOU'RE KILLING US MY BUSINESS WILL DIE!!!!... And somehow they did not die.. they got by, converted and realized that the new system was a millions times better than os9 once it had time to mature. I think many of these same people are the ones complaining about Final Cut Pro X now. It's only been a week, you need to give Apple and third party developers time to build it out the features and support. Apple tore down the old house to make this new version but left the inside with bare walls that will be built piece by piece over the next 10 years and i'm sure they gut it and tear down the house again when it's time.
The same people who throw around the term "Pro" to prop up their ego's are the ones who would buy $6000 speaker cable because "it sounds better" even though an engineer would tell you that any quality same gauge copper wire will have the exact same physical properties/sound.
So what's my point? Elitism.
Every now and then I will run into a designer who went to a boutique Art School and will sit there trying to give me Pantone spot colors that will make the job cost $20,000 more because their artistic sense tells them they need to act like Martha Stuart and pick from "designer colors" You have 10,000,000 colors to choose from and you want to use "obtuse beige" because it "feels better" that regular old beige. These are the people in this forum pretending to be "Pros" while putting down other people because they "don't get it" I'll tell you when these types of people come to work for me they become humble when their elitist world view crumbles as they see real professionals working on real projects.
About Me: I'm an Art Director for an Advertising Company During my daily duties I may (but not limited to): Use CS5 Indesign, Photoshop, Premier, etc. Cinema 4d, FCP, Manage servers, php/mysql/html/css, product photography, iphone/ipad programing.
Last edited:
I don't disagree that it's the person, not the software that's professional. To a point. But not completely. There are industry defined standards and requirements. And if software does not meet those requirements (while others do) then one is labeled professional and the other perhaps not. I think this is legitimate.
A professional can create the best they can - but are often limited by the tools they have at their disposal. I can paint an entire bedroom with a 1/8" brush - but not in a timely manner. An audio editor can do (very) rough edits of a soundtrack with some software - but for true and quality mixing - it requires special tools/software.
So it's not JUST the person that is professional. But it takes a professional to use the tools he or she has to the best of their ability to maximize their effectiveness.
As for your latter comment I clipped above - you're an elitist. Just of a different kind.