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

[baryon]

Good! Now just please make it run as fast as Premiere… I think nothing is more important in video editing than responsiveness, regardless of how many features you have… And FCP X is bloody slow on my 3 year old MacBook Pro!

 

[prowlmedia]

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.

That's because the bare 6 core is 2 years old. when the new xeons come in it's going to way faster? How do you not see that.

It's like saying... the iPad is faster at web stuff than my 2004 iMac...( which it is ) so lets stop making the iMac? Huh?

OK -Benchmarks are not the only thing that makes a difference on a machine

I have a 2008 8 CoreMac
custom NVidia 285 GTX 2 GB - ( PC versions with hacked rom - from ebay)
32GB of Ram And red rocket card
2 512MB SSD Drives and 2 2 TB Drives

In Real world tests - not benchmarks such as Premiere CUDA and A render engine that can access the GPU this is 8-10 times faster than the current fastest i7 mac. I know I have one too. But it does depends what you are doing and using.

Apps like After effects and Nuke run better the more memory and more cores you chuck at them. And it's not just design - medical and engineering apps are the same.

There is one very important thing people are forgetting here... MONEY.

This is $299 Avid and smoke and Premiere are a lot more... OK they may be chasing their tails - but they are adding everything people want. So when you take into account the Hardware you can buy 2-3 workstations in FCPX compared to Avid or smoke...

 

[iBug2]

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.

I remember using my Mac Pro + Macbook Pro years ago and did cluster rendering with 10 CPU cores, using Final Cut Studio 2. So it did back then. If it doesn't now, it's a shame.

Also 10 Mac Mini's should be much faster than a Mac Pro. They each have 4 threads, so it's 40 threads compared to 24 threads in Mac Pro.

 

[prowlmedia]

Great. RED update, after nobody shoots on REDs anymore.

In what way can you qualify that statement!?!

http://www.red.com/shot-on-red/cinema

And the 40-50 major productions in production I know of. ..

----------

I remember using my Mac Pro + Macbook Pro years ago and did cluster rendering with 10 CPU cores, using Final Cut Studio 2. So it did back then. If it doesn't now, it's a shame.

Also 10 Mac Mini's should be much faster than a Mac Pro. They each have 4 threads, so it's 40 threads compared to 24 threads in Mac Pro.

Nope. Not always. Overheads matter a lot. GPU power can be leveraged too which is minimal in the mini.

Let alone the power consumption.

 

[iBug2]

In what way can you qualify that statement!?!

http://www.red.com/shot-on-red/cinema

And the 40-50 major productions in production I know of. ..

----------



Nope. Not always. Overheads matter a lot. GPU power can be leveraged too which is minimal in the mini.

Let alone the power consumption.

I don't think Compressor uses GPU at all. Final Cut Pro X in some tasks uses Open CL but Compressor should be CPU only. But you are right about the power consumption.

But chaining CPU units has been for a long time the standard way to do big renders, especially 3D. So it should not be a "no go". And Apple needs to fix any bugs related to distributed rendering in Compressor if people are having issues with it, because it's been a long time since that feature was introduced. Today, it should simply work.

 

[iDemiurge]

They list "mac", and if you look at the pictures they're clearly using Apple cinema display, and I really don't think they're using a Mac Mini.

There's far too much of a need for Apple to discontinue their Mac Pros. I'm also sure that they know that if they did, they'd lose their professional customer base, making all their work on FCP X a big waste.

Also, do you really think they expect people to edit RED on an iMac? Really?

If you had read the articles you'd have seen that they specifically mention iMacs and Macbook Pros, but no Mac Pro.

Maybe there are Mac Pros connected to those Apple displays. In this case the fact that Apple decided not to stress this out is still very telling.

Maybe they'll come up with a different solution, something more powerful than an iMac but not a true multi-bay workstation. Who knows? I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but I think you guys are grasping at straws here. The mac pro hasn't been updated in almost two years, the appropriate CPUs are now out, and still no word from Apple.

 

[iBug2]

If you had read the articles you'd have seen that they specifically mention iMacs and Macbook Pros, but no Mac Pro.

Maybe there are Mac Pros connected to those Apple displays. In this case the fact that Apple decided not to stress this out is still very telling.

Maybe they'll come up with a different solution, something more powerful than an iMac but not a true multi-bay workstation. Who knows? I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but I think you guys are grasping at straws here. The mac pro hasn't been updated in almost two years, the appropriate CPUs are now out, and still no word from Apple.

The CPU's have been "just" released. So if Apple is going to upgrade the line, they are certainly not "too late".

If they discontinue, I hope they offer something along the lines of iMac Pro, with desktop class GPU and a bigger screen.

 

[smali]

That's because the bare 6 core is 2 years old. when the new xeons come in it's going to way faster? How do you not see that.
.

Where can one buy a new mac pro to test against, oh that's right there isn't one. AS far as Apple is concerned that 2 year mac pro is the new one, even says so on their website.

I really hope Apple drop the pro, hopefully only then we will shed the most rabid fan base of all - the so called "pros".

 

[iBug2]

I have a 2008 8 CoreMac
custom NVidia 285 GTX 2 GB - ( PC versions with hacked rom - from ebay)
32GB of Ram And red rocket card
2 512MB SSD Drives and 2 2 TB Drives

In Real world tests - not benchmarks such as Premiere CUDA and A render engine that can access the GPU this is 8-10 times faster than the current fastest i7 mac. I know I have one too. But it does depends what you are doing and using.

There's no way an 8 core Mac Pro from 2008 (which I own one as well) is 8-10 times faster than the current high end iMac. At most it'll be as fast. The current iMacs have 8 threads, the same as Mac Pro's. Yes, 8 virtual threads aren't as fast as 8 real ones, but they are close. Not to mention the new iMacs use memory almost twice as fast as 2008 Mac Pro's which also speeds many things up, and their GPU is almost as fast as the one you own. So at best you might see 5-10% performance benefit of your Mac Pro compared to the current iMac, but that's it. On many tasks iMac will be actually faster. The only downside is that the iMac will be very noisy compared to a Mac Pro.

 

[richlen]

Moved over to Adobe Premier and not looking back.There was barely any learning curve and is full of features that go beyond FCP7 and X. Performance is great on my iMac. Can't wait to see what Premiere CS6 is like. I don't run around all day and say "I only wish it had ________."

 

[budgynana]

I really hope Apple drop the pro, hopefully only then we will shed the most rabid fan base of all - the so called "pros".

There absolutely has to be "pros" of some kind in any industry otherwise you're devaluing the importance of education/training and experience. You can't think that Apple got to where they are without "pros" of some kind - and the same goes for any other company.

 

[mBox]

Great. RED update, after nobody shoots on REDs anymore.

your nick name fits brother great facts there, you should write for the industry.

 

[z3r0]

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.

The iMac is not pro gear. Nor the Mac Mini. The MacBook Pros are freat for the road but not for serious editing when you need the horsepower. Not to mention that with the iMac or MacBook Pro if the hard drive fails your screwed, video card or display as well. Not to mention the annoyance of a built in glossy monitor (though the MacBook Pro has a matte option)

The Mac Pro on ther other hand is expandable and has A LOT more horsepower. Hard drive goes bad? Swap it out. Video card? Swap it out. Display dies? Use another. Need internal RAID? Add a RAID card. Etc...

What I do wish the Mac Pro had was a redundant swappable power supply. I love the form factor, if anything Apple should go bigger (NOT smaller) to add more PCI-X slots and internal drive space.

Pro's could also used a revived XServe and Final Cut Server for asset management and workflow automation/transcoding.

 

[mBox]

I think you're spot on. And its kind of funny with all the fan-boys yelling FCP X is a pro-product and has always been.

Dont mistake the ones that know as a fanboy. I use Avid day to day. I got a chance to learn FCPX for my side job as an instructor.
Most of the baseless info you read are just that...baseless. If you dont use it and dont know it, you cant say anything about it.
I know the ones online that use it and have real gripes and most are not on macrumors trolling for a fight

----------

There's no way an 8 core Mac Pro from 2008 (which I own one as well) is 8-10 times faster than the current high end iMac. At most it'll be as fast. The current iMacs have 8 threads, the same as Mac Pro's. Yes, 8 virtual threads aren't as fast as 8 real ones, but they are close

True that but if you add other factors, the iMac doesnt cut it for what real "pros" deem as a NLE workstation. TB currently cant keep up with a few 16x and 8x cards like most of us need in one box. Heck we cant even fit it in one box, we have to use a PCI Expander like a CUBIX
Recently your seeing alot of Marketing ploys by putting the apps screen on a iMac. Apple is probably suggesting that to the software/hardware vendors.
Cant blame them for tying

----------

There absolutely has to be "pros" of some kind in any industry otherwise you're devaluing the importance of education/training and experience. You can't think that Apple got to where they are without "pros" of some kind - and the same goes for any other company.

Its just a word. A marketing word that stuck with them.
You got Final Cut Pro, Mac Pro and Logic Pro.
They can call it Kevin for all I care, it still a great app at $300 USD.
Is everyone on here have a million bucks?
Most of you sound like you all have edit suites with Flanders displays laying around like cocaine on a coffee table

 

[the8thark]

Your correct in my opinion. The software is what it is, but HOW Apple rolled out FCPX was a disaster as evidenced by the firestorm on the net following the reality versus what Apple implied.

For certain the rollout of FCPX is a dead horse, but it's still relevant while Apple reintroduces features that it didn't include when FCPX was first released.

Yes, Apple threw the pro users under the bus with FCPX, but you would NOT have heard so much complaining by the high-end user if Apple released FCPX as FCX-Express and told the high-end user that the high-end features they count on to run their businesses would be back in FCProX soon.

But Apple knew, IMO, that they would sell a lot of copies to the masses by calling it Pro and the masses would be happy with it. And they were right.

I actually really like FCPX, but Apple created expectations for the Pro user the way they introduced it, and IMO were disingenuous, if not deceitful by showing a FCP7 project in X implying that it would in fact open in X.

When FCPX was released and the reality of what wouldn't work for the high-end user hit, Apple disenfranchised many users that for years were the loyal customers who typically referred Apple products to others. Before the iPod/iPhone, PowerMacs and FCP created the halo effect for Apple.

Some say, well you can still use FCP7 so why the complaints? The complaints came from the situation Apple created where high-end users COULDN'T upgrade to FCPX, and combined with the expectations that the introduction (NAB 2011) created, had those users looking for alternatives to fill their workflow needs for the future. Another painful reality hit when you needed to expand your business and increase the number of workstations for new and ongoing projects. You could NOT buy FCP7 to expand your business. What do you do with ongoing projects that require a collaborative workflow, need to export XML or audio to other workstations, etc?

It was Apple that forced many business owners to look elsewhere.

I agree with you all bar the last line.

"It was Apple that forced many business owners to look elsewhere."
Not true. It was the business owners themselves who chose to leave Apple.

 

[theSeb]

This release will cause us to get at least one station of a new Mac, a seat of FCPX to service the RED equipment we rent for special events.

If it works out for us with our low duty cycle, the folks who watch our bleeding edge resolution and speed needs, will then consider the setup for FX and CGI stuff.

We are looking in particular for the graphics co-processor aspects of the unannounced features. TB can probably keep up with 4k and 8k at 60fps, and we may need a SSD cache.

We have pretty short capture times, under 2 minutes.

Rocketman

Have you considered a solution like this?

http://www.fusionio.com/platforms/iofx/

 

[mBox]

I agree with you all bar the last line.

"It was Apple that forced many business owners to look elsewhere."
Not true. It was the business owners themselves who chose to leave Apple.

Yes that is the truth. We make our decisions based on ROI. As Ive stated before, $300 for a decent working NLE cant be overlooked.
My company pays Avid 2k a year just so I can call and remind them that their app is buggy.

----------

Good! Now just please make it run as fast as Premiere… I think nothing is more important in video editing than responsiveness, regardless of how many features you have… And FCP X is bloody slow on my 3 year old MacBook Pro!

Its up and down with both apps for a lot of users. Im going to have to blame the workstation. I have colleagues with FCPX running faster than the CS 5.5 but then I have other friends with reverse problems.
I wish it was that easy to pinpoint but it isnt.
For me at work, we have PPro on a dozen computers.
Time to time Ill be on it for an older or quick and dirty project.
Even with all computers with same specs they act differently.
After Effects is the only constant in my workflow.
FCPX runs smooth on all stations it resides on even better now with Lion.

----------

Have you considered a solution like this?

http://www.fusionio.com/platforms/iofx/

Is this a ROCKET replacement? Im gonna have to read up more.

 

[theSeb]

I'm not so concerned about the CPU speed as I am tech updates: USB 3 and Thunderbolt come directly to mind. And I mentioned in the same thread they could be working more aggressively with Nvidia to get more product parity for GPU offerings.

You have empty PCIe slots in the current Mac Pro. You can put in a USB 3 card into one of them.

 

[nick_elt]

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.

You sound like a fandroid.

 

[e-coli]

In what way can you qualify that statement!?!

http://www.red.com/shot-on-red/cinema

And the 40-50 major productions in production I know of. ..

No chance you can rattle off 40-50 major productions. There are only a handful of major productions shot each year.

Of the movies listed as "Shot On Red", there are about 5 serious movies. The rest are nickelodeon flicks with low budgets or rely on tons of CG (in which case the shots don't have to be good).

REDs are notoriously unreliable. They fail frequently. Arri digital and Panasonic have taken over REDs space. DPs hate REDs, and I've never been on a set without at least one backup.

 

[mBox]

No chance you can rattle off 40-50 major productions. There are only a handful of major productions shot each year.

Of the movies listed as "Shot On Red", there are about 5 serious movies. The rest are nickelodeon flicks with low budgets or rely on tons of CG (in which case the shots don't have to be good).

REDs are notoriously unreliable. They fail frequently. Arri digital and Panasonic have taken over REDs space. DPs hate REDs, and I've never been on a set without at least one backup.

Oh I get it, its your personal choice. I respect that. But admit your wrong that your statement that no one shoots with RED was off based. I mean, are you the only one in the business?

 

[thuchu1]

Whenever I see ads for FCPX I get so excited about it, then I go back to my friends workstation and realize how little I like it. I'm 100% certain I just get excited because of the R8 they use in advertisements.

 

[mBox]

Whenever I see ads for FCPX I get so excited about it, then I go back to my friends workstation and realize how little I like it. I'm 100% certain I just get excited because of the R8 they use in advertisements.

Thanks for sharing, I get the same feeling when Im actually editing in it

 

[lucasgladding]

Of the movies listed as "Shot On Red", there are about 5 serious movies. The rest are nickelodeon flicks with low budgets or rely on tons of CG (in which case the shots don't have to be good).

Seriously? The first row alone includes Prometheus, Haywire, and The Hobbit.

Also, since when did anything other than full CG not require a good camera?

 

[mBox]

Seriously? The first row alone includes Prometheus, Haywire, and The Hobbit.

Also, since when did anything other than full CG not require a good camera?

Shhh!!! I think we got an ARRI troll here NAB sure brings out the evil in us