Actually the xdr can do Dolby vision. Plus with the new black magic mini monitor that does hdr you can connect any hdr monitor and view an extended range.
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 Updates Final Cut Pro X and Logic Pro X for Apple Silicon Macs Ahead of M1 Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
exactly, what is going on there? what is the point of releasing it on the iPhone but not on their "pro" video editing software?no dolby vision editing
Okay, thank you. I just heard earlier that 12 bits are needed to work with Dolby Vision.
Last edited:
"...
- Improved performance and efficiency on Mac computers with Apple silicon ..."
So is FCPX a NATIVE Apple Silicon app now?
Has all the code been ported for real? Or has it just had a few optimizations for AS?
Next up: Motion! (Hurry up, Apple)
They state
"Improved performance and efficiency on Mac computers with Apple silicon"
It means fast as previous one on AS, slowed down on Intel 😁
Thank you for the perspective. Always nice to find a nugget of objectivity among all the troll manure.
Same here. I actually learned it because I had a large contract with a local station to produce 3 hours of talking heads content and my 3 person team was all FCPX. Instead of forcing them into PP, I tried using FCPX.
I got the hang of it. That's when I saw how fast it was, but not as stable as I'd liked. Also, I still had to use AE (I was a motion guy, but AE is 1000x better) so ended up having to export every time for very small changes.
I'm still a PP guy, but those 6 months showed me that FCPX isn't as cracked up as people make it seem.
There are lot of things even a mediocre FCPX editor like me can do faster in FCPX over PP. I'm more an expert in PP, so it's not that much of a difference in speed for me, but for someone just starting out or someone who may be an expert in FCPX it is faster.
Also, PP and most of the adobe apps aren't optimized for the Mac .... like at all. PP would be super fast and stable if Adobe hoped on that. Granted, FCPX is plagued with bugs and random shutdowns and lockups depending on the system and footage used.
They each have their advantages.
Of course this is just between PP and FCPX. If I had to pick the fastest overall, I'd say Avid on an HP workstation smokes the whole lot. I just don't have $50k+ lying around.
If the M1 chip does indeed have the same type of oomph on the low-end machines as the new AMD Ryzens then Final Cut and Logic are going to fly! Looking forward to this!
I had thought XDR does support Dolby Vision as per the apple spec, which specifies:
- Dolby Vision, HDR10, and Hybrid-Log Gamma (HLG) playback support
Thanks, I'll check that video, but keywords are just a step back for how much you can personalize a workflow. The file management is also the biggest bottleneck with memory on my system. I keep reading how super powerful it is, and how once it clicks it's life changing, but I keep running into limitations.
Of course yeah you can fudge the missing "Save As" feature (I appreciate the tip about the snapshot, that's one I have tried) but there are still too many occasions with the app where I find myself going into the finder to do something.
Oh jeez, I'm almost relieved to hear you had the same waveform issue but I thought the last mini update addressed that? They at least acknowledged people still work in the timeline
Keywords just aren't an innovation. Find file always was useful, it's great they created a way to cross search directories and to have clips cross referenced in different ways, but it's not a substitute for customized drag and drop organization, nesting folders, etc. Even the Finder has more customization.
I'm excited about Silicon and still hold out hope FCPX revamps the user experience and basic media management aspects.
Nice of you to try hopping on that train, great opportunity for a both learning and test ride. Solid agree on all your comments.
Just wanted to give a couple of comments:
AE 1000x better: yes, I have a hard time sometimes accepting this. Because of the subscription model, because it’s tied to other 60 apps that I won’t use besides photoshop. Because its rendering performance is downright subpar compared to how fast Motion is on that front (and its 3D environment, behaviors, publishing parameters, rigs, etc that can be exported as plugins towards FCPX). But honestly, AE is a beast, having used it for close to 15 years now... there’s no real contender on a layers based compositor. Plus the plugins, the expressions scripting, it is a bliss. I would like for Motion to have comps and precomps at least for example.
FCPX plagued with bugs: what the heck is up with this, a ‘pro’ software, movies made with it, really. For such a responsive program where everything is seemingly going perfectly fine and smooth, suddenly out of the blue (and too often to trigger fears of unreliability) an infinite spinning beachball can keep you there for a minute before realizing it just hung up or it just vanishes magically out of your view to then be met with a “this thing crashed, ignore or reopen” pop up prompt.
I guess what I want to say is that I would really like for this to be finally ironed out and made the state of the art piece of tech that it’s close to be.
Yeah, for what is worth, I’m 100% on the same bandwagon. I can‘t really defend FCPX blindly, especially coming from other a lot more ‘manual’ workflows, After Effects being my software of choice, I even just sometimes do photoshop-lite like things there (masking is just so much better, flexible and intuitive for me there for 99% of the cases). When trying masking in FCPX for example (not really meant for compositing, but an example) zooming in-out and panning while masking is just bonkers. The project browser on Adobe land is what it should be everywhere: create your comps, precomps, folders to group things, import media (and replace with another one) with its settings, etc etc. Simple and straight forward... that keyword thing on FCPX is indeed weird and the whole thing limited to two layers: the library file itself (the project’s root), the events (layer 1) and keywords (2).
But I feel there’s something there, some other things sometimes feel magical, also because the hardcore users just swear by it and some tutorials do so many amazing things in under a single minute. I think an Andrew Kramer of sorts for FCPX and Motion would sway the tides big time.
I get very uneasy too without the Save As feature, in AE I start with something like project_001.aep and can end at project_083_final_recovered_merged_twice.aep, but I think because losing work is a real thing, after the first couple of serious newbie hits it leaves PTSD. However I have never lost anything on FCPX.
I would love it to ‘click’ too though. Be able to swiftly fly by, creating plugins from Motion to FCPX is just easy, friendly and ultra powerful (something that would take serious scripting and programming in some cases to do something similar in PPr/AE), etc
A bit of a vent: the Import “leave files in place” or “copy to library” options, good god... there has to be a better way for this. Also replacing existing footage is insane, it has to be the exact same length and same everything... makes no sense to me.
Apple's programmes use Avid software/hardware, it's not surprising at all FCPX is still behind for "pros".
In that case, making them eat their own dog food would have amazing benefits for everybody in the ecosystem.
I wouldn’t read too much into that. When they announced apple silicon in the summer there was a mention of how good would fcpx run under their own processors.
Now it was about showing that there were lots of programs ready for the new architecture.
I think fcpx would be fine. This is coming from the guy who is most bitter about the criminal treatment apple gave to aperture.
Is there a link for that? Don’t get me wrong, it’s totally believable, otherwise apple could be bragging about how everything is done within their ecosystem.
They outsource all the production. Apple makes nothing. There is no such thing as apple studios as far as I know. They hire production companies to make shows for them and these production companies hate interference generally. And would definitely not be ok with software rules. Not with all these other streaming services competing for their stuff.
Please DM me what those titles are. Would really love to know who still works with final cut.
There’s Focus, for instance. If memory serves, the next movie the directors made was also edited in fcpx.
you mean more “inside knowledge”? I’m just mildly aware with what is just publicly available (as continued on below). Out of curiosity if you don’t mind, are you by any chance involved in the FCPX world in some way?
(There are some “Alex” that I have seen online that create plugins and libraries of sorts)
There’s Focus, for instance. If memory serves, the next movie the directors made was also edited in fcpx.
That’s a nice article.
There’s also Whiskey Tango Foxtrot which I think is a bit more recent than Focus, there’s an interesting enough panel talk about it:
I was also wrongly thinking from memory about the Korean movie “Parasite”, from 2019, which is indeed Final Cut Pro... but, wait for it, 7!
On the short films side there’s a few more ones on FCP.co (and maybe a lot more that we don’t know about).
The general feeling of those few productions is that FCPX feels faster, the magnetic line is a savior, organizes data and metadata very well, etc...
Myself, with sequences with only a few short shots, screen captures and still images in a library, get anxious of how it looks on the project browser. Sometimes I start using keywords inside events as folders... it’s a bit of a mess brain wise and don’t really have a clear idea yet what are good rules of thumb.
Can’t imagine hours and hours of content of a full production.
I'm not an editor but I work in movie industry and interact with those people. More so with the blockbuster AAA part of Hollywood so I'm no expert on the indie side. And Premiere is used in 100% of movies I know of. Sure FCP is faster. But pros care for functionality rather than speed.you mean more “inside knowledge”? I’m just mildly aware with what is just publicly available (as continued on below). Out of curiosity if you don’t mind, are you by any chance involved in the FCPX world in some way?
(There are some “Alex” that I have seen online that create plugins and libraries of sorts)
That’s a nice article.
There’s also Whiskey Tango Foxtrot which I think is a bit more recent than Focus, there’s an interesting enough panel talk about it:
I was also wrongly thinking from memory about the Korean movie “Parasite”, from 2019, which is indeed Final Cut Pro... but, wait for it, 7!
On the short films side there’s a few more ones on FCP.co (and maybe a lot more that we don’t know about).
The general feeling of those few productions is that FCPX feels faster, the magnetic line is a savior, organizes data and metadata very well, etc...
Myself, with sequences with only a few short shots, screen captures and still images in a library, get anxious of how it looks on the project browser. Sometimes I start using keywords inside events as folders... it’s a bit of a mess brain wise and don’t really have a clear idea yet what are good rules of thumb.
Can’t imagine hours and hours of content of a full production.