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

[iBug2]

No offence but he is right and you are wrong.

See benchmarks -

http://www.barefeats.com/fcpx01.html

MBP is almost as fast as 6 core Mac Pro in most of the benchmarks. Also the iMac even beats the mac pro in half of the benchmarks.

The iMac and MBP cost less than half the price of that mac pro over here.

Mac Pros aren't needed anymore.

It's not just CPU power. Don't forget that you can install a lot of PCI-Express in a mac pro which you can't into anything else Apple offers. Not to mention incredible amounts of RAM.

CPU is the least important thing. You can daisy chain macs to gain CPU power but you can't daisy chain anything to get PCI-E or more RAM.

And last but not least, mac minis, or mbp's or imacs get extremely hot and noisy when you load them up to the full. Mac Pro's are silent and don't give you a headache.

 

[MovieCutter]

Good to see these improvements. Too bad they are not here yet, although I applaud the decision to let the pro community know what is coming.

And while RED camera support will (eventually) be great to have I know numerous places that depend on R3D workflow who moved away from Apple after Apple dropped them.

I'm not sure if this will recapture the trust lost from those whose business investment was built around Final Cut and left when functionality that was in FCP7 was not included in FCPX.

----------



I think the real mistake Apple made was pushing this as a FCP7 replacement at the LAFCPUG during NAB 2011. They really misled people during that presentation by showing a project in FCP7 and then showing, and saying, "here is the SAME project in FCPX!", but never saying , "oh BTW, you can't OPEN your FCP7 projects in FCPX.

The hype backfired.

----------



When people say the "pro" market is a bunch of whiners, this is a good example of the level of financial investment to be at that level. So when something can no longer be trusted to work it is off the job. If your software of choice drops support for you, you move on.

This exactly.

 

[NY Guitarist]

Or try http://www.red.com/search?query=mysterium+resolution and admit non-real time is just fine.

I see the one I used before is not on the website for immediate shipment. Several times the resolution and a higher frame rate. One wonders who bought them all . . . .

Just Rocketman

According to RED James Cameron bought 50, Peter Jackson bought 48 (I think) etc.

Oops did you mean the R1-MX? I meant the EPIC.

 

[MovieCutter]

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.

Let me know that when you have to meet deadlines and you have major renders to complete...otherwise, move back into the consumer threads...

----------

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.

Adobe is going to lay down the gauntlet at NAB with Production Suite 6.0...I've already talked to some people who have worked with it and it's supposed to be what FCP7 user wanted in FCP8. Adobe worked very hard to address the issues us FCP editors had with FCP7, and make Premiere CS6 far more attractive to those of us who are working with or looking towards 4K workflows.

 

[MattInOz]

But is it really needed. Aside from the ability to swap drives, does one really need a Pro.

Yes, it's needed...
Sometimes you just need to Brute Force the Solution.

Sure there isn't much growth to be had in Brute Force Solutions but all Apples growth in other areas is flow on from these solutions.

 

[iBug2]

Let me know that when you have to meet deadlines and you have major renders to complete...otherwise, move back into the consumer threads...

Have you actually chained like 10 mac minis and used them to render something? It should most certainly beat any Mac Pro out there, while costing around the same. I know it would only work for the Compressor distributed rendering, but still, isn't that the thing which takes the most time?

 

[apolloa]

hmm, interesting, seems to be the perfect time for that brand new Mac Pro? Update to it's professional software, presence at a professional show, come on Apple, get it out already, we all know the CPU's aren't holding you up now!

 

[Lesser Evets]

I hate to say that anyone that moved away from FCP X because it didn't have adequate options and abilities has done the right thing. Since OSX began, Apple's software has been notoriously underdeveloped and annoyingly so across a decade. If they left things out of FCP X, it means most of it, probably the stuff you REALLY NEED, will never resurface or be added. Typical.

I wonder if Apple doesn't give a crap about customer feedback concerning their high-profile software. The same problems persist, everyone writing in, bitching, and nothing ever done. But, we can be sure of ONE THING: they'll program in some nice iOS integration.

 

[dontmatter]

Apple sure does love the Audi R8

 

[aristotle]

Though I'm not a video editor, I have used Final Cut 7 and I find the design quite dated.

Right, it should have some gaudy coloured squares all over the screen. :roll eyes:

As a developer, people like you irritate me to no end. FCP is a "tool" for doing "work" and what matters most if capability and usability not how it makes hipsters feel inside. It does not exist to validate you or make you feel all warm and fuzzy. If you want to show off how "hip" and "cool" you are then buy a house and renovate it to your tastes.

Change for the sake of change is idiotic.

 

[kylepro88]

I wonder if Apple doesn't give a crap about customer feedback concerning their high-profile software. The same problems persist, everyone writing in, bitching, and nothing ever done. But, we can be sure of ONE THING: they'll program in some nice iOS integration.

What are you talking about? What are all these updates within a short amount of time then? You think they have a whole division of the company working on adding all these updates for sh**s and giggles, or that they built the program from the ground up in Cocoa because it sounded like fun? They're very serious about updating the program with things people want. If they didn't care, a guy like Larry Jordan wouldn't be having a table meeting. Them being tightlipped about what they're up to or what they plan to do is nothing new for Apple.

The program is brand new, and it takes time to add new features and add old features back since they all have to be rewritten to exist anyways. I think for it being less then a year since its release they've done a great job of getting the program more up to speed.

I'm no FCP fanboy either. I use Adobe products as well. Compressor is dog slow compared to Adobe Media Encoder, and Premiere has its strengths too. The one big reason why I won't go 100% Adobe is because despite the announcement of CS6 and OpenCL support for the Mercury Playback Engine...that support is limited to the chips found in 2011 MacBook Pro's and (currently) no farther. Not until that support is expanded will I give Premiere more of my attention day to day. If you're a MacPro user, the only way to get GPU acceleration in your video-editor is to either use FCPX since your Mac (and any iMac or MBP) comes with ATI video cards, or use Premiere and MacPro but toss the ATI card you already paid for and replace it with a CUDA qualified card from Nvidia. Until CS6 expands OpenCL support and more ATI cards are supported for GPU accel., FCPX is the fastest renderer/editor you can get for your Mac in regard to playback and final output. AGAIN, not for those who have MacPro's with a CUDA Nvidia card, but that's few of us, and if you go that route you're cut off from using GPU accel. in FCPX. It's a catch 22...and I'm not someone who works in one or the other exclusively.

Also what's with those saying "too bad there's no hardware to run it on." I want a MacPro update too, but I think we're forgetting the machines we have already. For most of us working with 1080p or lower and not 4k, the current MacPro's are BEASTLY machine that can handle it beautifully. Even if you're using 4k, anybody on the Mac platform shooting RED uses the same machines we do, plus a RED Rocket card for those who can afford it. There's nothing wrong with the current machines to get work done today. An update will come and I agree it's been a long time, but I'm not gonna bash the wonderful machines of the past.

Apple gives us some wonderful products and most of the time they get things right. Stop keeping their right eye blue with constant punches to the face over their error with the FCPX release timing and FCP7 dumping. They made a mistake, deal with it. Be glad it wasn't worse. Apple gave me the Mac, OSX, the iPod and iPhone, etc...they can mess up every once in a while even if it's big.

/rant

 

[Keebler]

Have you actually chained like 10 mac minis and used them to render something? It should most certainly beat any Mac Pro out there, while costing around the same. I know it would only work for the Compressor distributed rendering, but still, isn't that the thing which takes the most time?

by using the word 'should'...most certainly beat, I have to ask - have you personally daisy chained 10 mac minis?

Sure the costs of the 10 minis might be the same as 1 MP, but that's a whole pile of extra power cables etc...to power them up and chain them. I have a G4, G5, 2009 MP, 2010 MP and a 2006 MP in my office and there's enough cables from those machines to drive me nuts. I couldn't imagine anymore! Let's not even get into footbrints around the work area either lol

Sorry...I'll take 1 machine to do the work of 10 anyday.

----

Regarding the world of pros leaving FC and Apple - I don't blame them. For me, FCX works, as an individual and someone not cutting feature films or commercials. Basic edits is what I need, plus occasional extras and FCX/Compressor work for me.

BUT, these are tough economic times and if a tool or set of tools will allow one to do their job more efficiently than the next person and prepare them for new technologies, thus enabling them to keep getting hired, I say go for it. I fear that editing has become like photography and journalism where reduced software and hardware costs have created 'sudden professionals' who undercut the real pros thus diluting the markets.

You can love or hate FCX, but even if you love it, you can not (with an educated mind), disagree with the fact that the future of the Final Cut line was not communicated properly at all by Apple.

I can't wait for the updates myself. I'm still hoping they have a better solution (ie. an updated DVD Studio Pro app) for blu rays, but then again, the new AppleTV output capabilities help erase a chunk of that need.

 

[knewsom]

Still no real XML (only the BS FCPX xml which doesn't work with ANYTHING), still no OMF, why are they wasting time on this other stuff when there are core features it lacks?

 

[Rocketman]

With TB you can do 3-4 channels of 1080HD on a MacPro. You can do 2 of 4k and 1 of 5-8K.

The new MacPro needs GPU acceleration and dual channel TB.

This is probably why Apple has been on the H.264 gihad for a few years. Less lossy compression deployed to all platforms including theatrical display.

We really need fractal.

Rocketman

 

[BornAgainMac]

Sounds like a profession application now. The average person won't know what this update does.

 

[Morky]

That's really what i meant. If they had released FCPX as 'A Preview of The Next Generation of Video Editing', and kept FCS3 available, then i'm sure the reaction would not have been so bad. But they removed all traces of FCS3, said FCPX was the replacement, pure and simple and that was it. A marketing failure really more than anything else.

Anyways, lets not get into that again

This comment is all that needs to be said about FCP X. It's the future, but the release and message were horribly managed.

 

[kylepro88]

Still no real XML (only the BS FCPX xml which doesn't work with ANYTHING), still no OMF, why are they wasting time on this other stuff when there are core features it lacks?

FCPX XML works for the team of LEVERAGE...not sure what you're talking about.

----------

With TB you can do 3-4 channels of 1080HD on a MacPro. You can do 2 of 4k and 1 of 5-8K.

The new MacPro needs GPU acceleration and dual channel TB.

Any current Mac with an ATI card gets GPU acceleration with FCPX and that goes for playback, realtime effects, and on final export. You don't need TB today to do what you said above either.

 

[patsfan83]

http://images.apple.com/finalcutpro/in-action/

Apple updated their final cut website with some model implementations of their software. Of note is the fact that none of the studios/shows featured list the mac pro in their gear list.

I also want to see a refreshed mac pro, but I don't think this is where the wind is blowing.

Nice find. The Leverage company shows a guy working with Cinema Displays, so he is definitely working on a MacPro.

 

[zedsdead]

Nice features, but really want:

(1) Library System ABOVE Events/Projects, similar to Aperture so you can have different library's (and each library would have its own events/projects. The unified system is foolish and causes a lot of lag. There is NO REASON to open everything all the time, especially when many events have nothing to do with each other.

(2) Chapter Marker Support.

(3) Revamped Compressor that automatically uses all cores like Handbrake does. VBR encoding would also be nice.

(4) Actual Background Rendering to occur while working.

(5) In/Out markers to stay on clips.

(6) Markers for clips already used (similar to iMovie).

I love the overall approach to FCP-X, so anything they add is welcome.

 

[patsfan83]

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.

I thought I remember reading someone was developing a Thunderbolt expansion chassis so you could add in multiple GPUs, etc.

 

[kylepro88]

Nice features, but really want:

(1) Library System ABOVE Events/Projects, similar to Aperture so you can have different library's (and each library would have its own events/projects. The unified system is foolish and causes a lot of lag. There is NO REASON to open everything all the time, especially when many events have nothing to do with each other.

Event Manager X solves your problem currently. It's worth it. Would like to have it built into FCPX, but for now solutions exist.

(2) Chapter Marker Support.

(3) Revamped Compressor that automatically uses all cores like Handbrake does. VBR encoding would also be nice.

Yea Compressor is a dog, I don't bother with it anymore. Adobe Media Encoder gives far greater performance and the option to use AVC encoding for video not just plain H264.

(4) Actual Background Rendering to occur while working.

That would be nice for sure!

(5) In/Out markers to stay on clips.

The point of using keywords is to do just that. Make a keyword called "Good Takes" and use it for every single I/O you use for all your clips. Then just go to the keyword and see all your I/O you've selected right there to browse.

(6) Markers for clips already used (similar to iMovie).

I love the overall approach to FCP-X, so anything they add is welcome.

Comments in bold above...

 

[Porco]

I still think Apple would have been better off keeping the old FCP around longer until the new one matched all its features.

Finally, Apple explains that Dual Viewers is analogous to Source and Record monitors and that they will try to do it better than has been implemented in the previously.

"in the application previously"?

"...than has been implemented previously"?

"than has been implemented in previous versions"?

 

[MovieCutter]

Have you actually chained like 10 mac minis and used them to render something? It should most certainly beat any Mac Pro out there, while costing around the same. I know it would only work for the Compressor distributed rendering, but still, isn't that the thing which takes the most time?

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard of. Why on earth would I spend the time and manpower setting up 10 computers to do the job of 1 for the same price...???

I spend most of my time rendering in FCP (60%), AE (20%), and C4D (20%). FCP sure as hell doesn't understand cluster computing.

 

[Ryth]

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.

Most of us just stuck with FCP and didn't upgrade to FCX

 

[mozumder]

FCP X is so good... so much better than FCP 7!