Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Reveals 2012 Final Cut Pro X Update with Multichannel Audio Editing, RED Support and More

Skika said:
This seems like a nice update. Seems like a lot of FCP X users are going to be pleased.
Click to expand...

A lot of FCP users have switched to Premiere and Avid, sorry to say. This "update" is too late for most of what was the FCP community. Too bad really. Took Apple a long time to get that market share and they lost most of it in the blink of an eye.
 
Rocketman said:
The FCP7 to FCPX transition was a royal F up. Most people don't buy RED equipment. They rent it for a couple of days or weeks. That way it is financially practical to actually use a 24k device at 120fps. And you don't even have to sell your house to do it.

Rocketman
Click to expand...

With the release of FCPX, Apple is going back to supporting the PRO users not the cheap little amateurs who can't afford RED equipment. :D :p ;)
 
Michael Scrip said:
Some people need 12 cores of power... the Mac Pro isn't only for swappable drives.

Apple isn't the only company who makes huge, multi-processor workstations...
Click to expand...

A quad-core MacBook Pro or iMac is more than enough power for anything FCPX can throw at it.

Mac Pros aren't needed anymore.
 
Rocketman said:
The FCP7 to FCPX transition was a royal F up. Most people don't buy RED equipment. They rent it for a couple of days or weeks. That way it is financially practical to actually use a 24k device at 120fps. And you don't even have to sell your house to do it.

Rocketman
Click to expand...

LMAO...24K device? Try 5K (http://www.red.com/products/epic click on "Tech Specs"). Plus, it's far more economical to buy a RED camera if you really need one on a regular basis than it is to rent one. They're not that expensive, and that's why they're so popular. They are also becoming less economically viable for smaller commercial production and amateur/student production as DSLRs get cheaper and more capable. The RED is good for specific things, like access to higher resolutions than current DSLRs deliver and cinema (e.g. Panavision) lenses. That kind of stuff is mostly out of reach to everyone but large movie studios, anyway (and most of the production companies tied to the studios that were using FCP aren't any more). Not sure where you're getting your info, but that's not what I see being in the amateur production world and occasionally working with the big boys. The only thing you seem to have gotten right was that FCP X was indeed an Apple "F up".
 
charlituna said:
But is it really needed. Aside from the ability to swap drives, does one really need a Pro.
Click to expand...

Yes. I feel like some of us are constantly having to assert this need around here.

Different people need different things. For many of us, having a Mac Pro isn't merely an exercise in vanity or excess or luxury. There are many people (pros and semi-pros and even non-pros) that NEED a Mac Pro (or expandable desktop design) for their computing work. I completely 100% understand that this isn't the case for everyone ("won't current iMacs with Thunderbolt work?", yada yada...), or even for most people. Not everyone needs a Mac Pro. But I DO. And there are many others like me.

I need (and do not merely prefer) multiple PCI slots. I need many processing threads. I need a non-reflecting screen (and choice in my monitors/components to begin with). I need multiple internal storage drives, plus external storage (and other) expansion capabilities. I need silence and cooling and optical drives and replaceable parts and tons of i/o ports/options. The computer is only part of my studio setup (my work is in music). For me, switching to a non-Mac Pro (say, an iMac) would also mean having to change all my other hardware and gear.

So yes, "one" (this one) does really need a Mac Pro. Depending on specifications and options, I *might* be able to go with a suitable Mac Pro replacement (another tower or headless semi-tower solution), but an iMac will not get it done for me.

I don't mean this post to sound like a rant- but if we're going to continue doing these show of hands inquiries as to who actually needs a mac pro, my hand is (and continues to be) fully raised.
 
People need to get their heads out of the notion that FCPX was a screw up. It was not a screw up. And anyone who says it is doesn't get it.

FCPX was pretty good software. And now they are updating it to make it even better. That's the whole story really. No more to it. Nothing about how 5% or some other really small % cried the loudest about FCPX when most people just got on with their lives and used it it didn't use it with no fuss what so ever.

We're talking about a software update here. If you want to flog that dead horse (thinking FCPX is bad when it is in reality quite good software which was deployed in a good way) then by my guest. Go waste your time with that. The rest of us will enjoy the good piece of software Apple released for us.
 
Icy1007 said:
A quad-core MacBook Pro or iMac is more than enough power for anything FCPX can throw at it.

Mac Pros aren't needed anymore.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

The only totally non-arrogant non-ignorant way to make your point would have been to say "Mac Pros aren't needed BY EVERYONE anymore."

I assure you, Mac Pros are still needed. But thanks for telling everyone else here what I (and many others) need.
 
dagger01 said:
LMAO...24K device? Try 5K .
Click to expand...

I thought dagger meant $24,000. But although a RED EPIC is twice that, a RED Scarlet is in that range when equipped.

The original RED One was $24K in a bared bones rig.

Keep in mind though that these price are VERY cheap compared to an ARRI Alexa, which has half the resolution, and is three time the size and weight.
 
Some pros are crying that they've been abandoned but it's not like Apple all of a sudden disabled FCP7 and now you were forced to use FCPX.

FCPX is a solid foundation to build an entirely new and future proof editing platform on and you can't expect that to happen over night. If it doesn't yet suit you, nobody is taking FCP7 away from you.

It's actually quite impressive that Apple has been able to provide so many new features and updates over such a short period. They're obviously working furiously to get it up to par.

If anything, Apple did a poor job at communicating their roadmap initially. Their secrecy backfired here but it seems that they've adjusted and have let pros know that they're not forgotten and that as new workstations need to be purchased, FCPX will be there for the future, but if you're fine editing on FCP7 now, keep it up until FCPX is ready for you.
 
kurosov said:
This comment makes no sense for multiple reasons.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense. When you have someone new coming into a software package, you want it to be intuitive and easy to use.

FC7 is a dated interface and has some really awkward ways to do things.

In terms of UI and intuitive FCX is superior..bar none.

Apple wants to make products everyone can use. Talent should set people apart...not the software.
 
Why do some think a Mac Pro update is essential? If you have the 12 core one, you're fine. If you have the 4 core, you can get the 8 or 12 core. If you have the 8 core, you can get the 12 core. If 12 isn't enough, you're a pro shop and you need a render farm. People need to chill. :):
 
Mr-Stabby said:
The more time goes on, the more i really feel for Apple when it comes to FCPX. They screwed up when releasing it, but it looks as though they're really trying to make amends and give the people who purchased it the features they actually wanted, and as free updates. I purchased FCPX and have liked it since the beginning, but understood why some professionals thought it was a weak release.
Click to expand...


Or maybe they had planned to reintroduce features all along, and it was just impossible to build everything into the first version.

Software is complicated.
 
They're making some progress on catching up to Adobe, which supported native MXF file editing back in 2009 on CS3. I used CS3 to edit DVCProHD P2 footage natively a couple years ago, myself. I'm still on the older CS5 at the moment, which edits RED natively, supports multichannel WAV files, and has dual viewers. Good to see Apple is still working on the program, at least.
 
8CoreWhore said:
Why do some think a Mac Pro update is essential? If you have the 12 core one, you're fine. If you have the 4 core, you can get the 8 or 12 core. If you have the 8 core, you can get the 12 core. If 12 isn't enough, you're a pro shop and you need a render farm. People need to chill. :):
Click to expand...

For a render farm, it makes sense to have 12 cores lined up. But one can daisy chain mac minis for the same job as well, since Compressor supports parallel processing on multiple macs.

The app shouldn't really work much faster on a Mac Pro than it does on a MBP today. Not every single task will be able to utilize 12 cores on any app out there. Most tasks will use a single processor and not even to the fullest. And if you can do your rendering on a render farm consisting of any kinds of macs, yeah, one does not need a Mac Pro anymore. But apart from processor speed, Mac Pro does offer PCI-Express. If it's crucial to your workflow to install some 3rd party hardware, then Mac Pro is the only way to go right now.
 
Can Final Cut X be used for timelapse work and able to run image sequences and then save to a 15-60fps movie?
 
Mac Pro update comments

Generally, I agree with other pros here regarding the desperate need for a Mac Pro update. Even more important, IMHO, is more support for Nvidia cards. There should be no reason Apple can't work a deal with Nvidia to get parity support for their GPU product lines. As much cash as Apple still has sitting, even after the dividend giveaway, it makes sense to have more hardware interoperability in order to compete in the broader market. Other than with GPU offerings, the Mac platform is missing very little for the pro market.
 
Last edited:
Apple is leaving clues in FCPX that point towards the death of the Mac Pro. Some people may not like it but it's increasingly likely that the future of the Mac Pro are in stackable Mac Minis. Add as few or as many as you need, daisy chained via Thunderbolt -- and stackable custom hardware in the chain -- and you can get a mini render farm going, more powerful than even a Mac Pro. The FCPX app itself doesn't require more than today's MacBookPro's or an iMac.
 
ipedro said:
Apple is leaving clues in FCPX that point towards the death of the Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with these clues of which you speak. Exactly what enhancements in FCPX preclude a Mac Pro update? It is OpenGL, memory and processor dependent - all of which can be addressed easily with a beefy Mac Pro config.
 
Last edited:
ipedro said:
Apple is leaving clues in FCPX that point towards the death of the Mac Pro. Some people may not like it but it's increasingly likely that the future of the Mac Pro are in stackable Mac Minis. Add as few or as many as you need, daisy chained via Thunderbolt -- and stackable custom hardware in the chain -- and you can get a mini render farm going, more powerful than even a Mac Pro. The FCPX app itself doesn't require more than today's MacBookPro's or an iMac.
Click to expand...

I think you're forgetting that no companies are shipping desktops with new Xeon processors yet. Dell and HP don't have new models out either, its not just Apple.

Also you can't use minis to make a render farm, they don't have the graphics capability. I can stick a Quaddro or FirePro card in my Mac Pro, I couldn't do that in a mini. (I'm talking 3D rendering, things may be different with rendering video.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back