People cut RED on FCPX?
That's hilarious! Oh wait. Yes. They do. And it works really really well. Here:
http://www.moviemaker.com/diy/movies-better-fcp-x-red-feature-film-workflow-part-1/
Perhaps you'd like to check it out.
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, Motion, and Compressor Alongside New Pro Marketing Push
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's hilarious! Oh wait. Yes. They do. And it works really really well. Here:
http://www.moviemaker.com/diy/movies-better-fcp-x-red-feature-film-workflow-part-1/
Perhaps you'd like to check it out.
I have a FCP X wedding project that I may burn in BlueRay but I have never done it before. Did you send the project to compressor first or did you burn it straight from the "share" option? And was the quality much better then DVD when you played on TV? Thanks.
I've used 5K and 4K for over a year and a half (I have a RED EPIC) and never needed burn in camera time code for what I've don (so far). Nice to be one of a kind ;-)
I bought CS5 to be able to edit my footage whe I got the camera as neither FCP 7 nor Fcpx could handle R3D natively. You get what tools you need to get the job done.
It was annoying to have to fork out the amount of money for software I didn't want, but it was what worked best for me at the time.
Now I have slowly started to move back to Fcpx as it handles R3D fiels natively, and I can access most of e meta data from within Fcpx.
Ps before anyone saying I'm not a Pro; I'm a DP yes, but I have worked as an editor on long form broadcast TV series in the past
Relic
I am an old relic and have to say that FCPX is fine for much of the limited functionality you need for a stand alone editor. For large systems and the complexity you face around fast turn around edits in near live broadcast it sucks. FCP 7 still runs rings around it. The biggest problem is the interface where separating audio out with no direct in out marking destroys speed and accuracy.
Things like NLEs develop for a reason, lots of input from lots of users over the years, chuck out the rule book and arrogantly re-invent and you lose lessons from time.
Not that I expect young uns to understand that.....
I am an old relic and have to say that FCPX is fine for much of the limited functionality you need for a stand alone editor. For large systems and the complexity you face around fast turn around edits in near live broadcast it sucks. FCP 7 still runs rings around it. The biggest problem is the interface where separating audio out with no direct in out marking destroys speed and accuracy.
Things like NLEs develop for a reason, lots of input from lots of users over the years, chuck out the rule book and arrogantly re-invent and you lose lessons from time.
Not that I expect young uns to understand that.....
Or you could look at it this way.
If you want FCP 8 with Avid style etc.. then er, get Avid. or Premier Pro.
With FCP X we have a different way of working and a choice in how you edit. Yes it is different but it acknowledges that computer interfaces and the way the TV industry works has changed in the past few years. Some love it, others love to bitch about it.
Avid called directories bins, so that film editors would get the idea. Sadly IMHO hardly anyone shoots film, nowadays as it's mostly tapeless. It's all about metadata and how you use that. The event browser in FCP X is a huge database/excel spreadsheet, which means you can organise data (i.e. media) however you want it.
At some point there has to be a step change to take us on the next level. FCP X is that step change.
WOW! I've long since left the FCP bandwagon, but I do remember the random green frames being an issue since Studio 1. It was the main reason I switched to AE.
Wait what?
From the list on the first page, Motion and Compressor have now JUST received updates to problems they've had since Studio 1.
As professionals neither of you two would be saying such things. The NLE depends on the editor. I've seen cutters fly on Avid MC5 and crawl on MC6. I've seen issues with Premiere CS5.5 that aren't on CS6. And we've all seen editors praise FCP7 and bash FCPX.
That's just considering the editor, let alone the workstation, workflow, media management, shared media storage (if you're a post house) and backend.
Don't just make stuff up.
This is what I was really afraid of personally. Not so much anymore now that my NLE and supporting apps are all cross platform. But there are post houses in Baltimore that JUST recovered from Apple ditching their Xserve and Xserve RAID systems. They're sitting pretty on Facilis and ISIS systems.
There's just no way to be sure Apple won't cripple X in the future, or just give it the axe.
Now for the indie filmmaker of the post house that isn't running off of shared access . . . . FCPX is a wonderful solution . . . . but so is just about everything else.
NO, not that no one uses FCPX, just NO in fast-turnaround news gathering. There aren't many news outlets that even made the first switch to FCP. Most of the ones in the Washington, Delaware, Maryland, PA, NY area use and have been using Avid.
Avid's AMA is really what keeps me recommending Avid for news gatherers. Just launch Avid, plug in your cam, and media is in the bin.
Last edited:
Good for FCPX users, but Aperture has been abandoned too long and everyone has been abandoning it for Adobe Lightroom. Lightroom also renders RAW files much better. Apple should let people know if they intend dropping Aperture or not.
That's a rather subjective statement isn't it? Most RAW processors will have some slight variation on how they render images "out-of-the-box". This includes LR and Aperture, but certainly ASP, C1, DXO.
Dailies are typically unedited, "raw" footage so why would there normally be a project to camera frame rate mismatch ?
Where the solution doesn't work is mixed/tweaked timecodes where switching between the projects timecode and the clips. But if comparing across multiple cameras all running at a different rate do you want to use the common metric or the different ones?
The future of Quicktime is AV Foundation - it was announced last years WWDC conference where at the AV Foundation session the presenter said that any new code should be written based on AV Foundation since it is the future. As for the Mac Pro - they really do need to update it for if no other reason that it acts as the water fall effect where those at the top professionally propagate advice out to friends and family to also go with a Mac. The same reason why one shouldn't dismiss enthusiast community either as it generates excitement and influence which can be a lot more persuasive at getting friends and family on a Mac than millions in advertisement. There is next to no advertisement for Mac's in NZ yet through friends and family you find that there are people going in and making those purchasing decisions.
I would like even a price drop. Something like $79 or so. There was a time i used Aperture to fit into my ALL Apple Pro Apps workflow and it was nice to use. It was also when I didn't to any processing in anything but Photoshop.
As Lightroom got better, as Aperture stagnated, and as the Apple Pro apps were overshadowed by Adobe, Avid, Sorenson, Boris, etc. I had less and less reason to stick with Aperture.
The final straw was the Creative Cloud, which includes Lightroom 4, and is still the best deal for high end software around.
It's time for 11
FCP 3: 2001
FCP 4: 2003
FCP 5: 2005
FCP 6: 2007
FCP 7: 2009
FCP X: 2011
See a pattern?
FCP 3: 2001
FCP 4: 2003
FCP 5: 2005
FCP 6: 2007
FCP 7: 2009
FCP X: 2011
See a pattern?
The Future
Apple purchased Nothing is Real and Shake was born. Apple abandoned Shake.
Apple abandoned Apature and Adobe beat the pants off them.
Apple abandoned FCP Server.
So how does one manage to take an editing system (Premiere) that is a kiss of death on a resume, and suddenly make it the hottest selling editing software on the market? Simple, follow company protocol and abandon the software, then substitute iMovie in a Final Cut box.
It is going to take more than a PR campaign and a new MacPro to fix this disaster.
Apple purchased Nothing is Real and Shake was born. Apple abandoned Shake.
Apple abandoned Apature and Adobe beat the pants off them.
Apple abandoned FCP Server.
So how does one manage to take an editing system (Premiere) that is a kiss of death on a resume, and suddenly make it the hottest selling editing software on the market? Simple, follow company protocol and abandon the software, then substitute iMovie in a Final Cut box.
It is going to take more than a PR campaign and a new MacPro to fix this disaster.
Pro Apps = low profits
Apple's commitment to software is governed only by the profit it yields the company.
How long will Apple maintain, upgrade, add to, enhance, improve its "Pro" Line of applications when it accounts for < 1% of its bottom line?
iPads, iPhone, laptops, and apps. This is what Apple is.
* of course they did just hire Kevin Lynch so who knows? Still, too uncertain to plan my film school training around Apple Inc.'s secret software roadmap. I'm getting the cloud for $20 with built in updates its a no brainer
Apple's commitment to software is governed only by the profit it yields the company.
How long will Apple maintain, upgrade, add to, enhance, improve its "Pro" Line of applications when it accounts for < 1% of its bottom line?
iPads, iPhone, laptops, and apps. This is what Apple is.
* of course they did just hire Kevin Lynch so who knows? Still, too uncertain to plan my film school training around Apple Inc.'s secret software roadmap. I'm getting the cloud for $20 with built in updates its a no brainer
I think Apple is well-aware that it is creating a product for up and coming filmmakers/editors - who, frankly, don't give a **** about "post-houses" and giant, archaic workflows built around an Avid suite.
Old-fashioned editors will continue to piss and moan, but the same thing happened to the newspaper industry and the same is happening to TV. When the day comes that allegedly "professional" film editors are out of job - they'll wonder why they didn't bother to follow the inevitable.
I love how someone pulls out the 2-3 guys using FCPX to try to illustrate that it's an industry standard.
FCP7 was the king of NLE's until FCPX rolled out... now it's hardly a blip in the pro community. Now why would that be? Is everyone a relic? In my studio we purchased several licenses and attempted to move off FCP7 to FCPX for several weeks. Because much of our media involves SAN sources, among other critical FCPX missing features, we ended up moving off FCPX. We stuck to FCP7 for about 15 months waiting to see what improvements were going to come. After seeing that the key features we needed for our studio weren't likely to appear any time soon, we finally moved off to Premiere.
----------
Our studio was on our 7th season on one episodic series and 5th season on another.... we attempted the move to FCPX for several weeks. The workflow speed of moving media around and sharing project timelines with other editors/assistant editors was so tedious, along with other key missing features in FCPX... that we had to dump it and move back to FCP7.
No... we are not a bunch of old relics who are stuck in 'old ways of editing'... in fact, we loved a lot of the timeline features that FCPX brought to the table. But the core functionality that we needed to do our work was either completely missing or gimped beyond anything useable in our workflow.
FCPX is a great single-station/single-editor NLE solution... but in a studio space it's incredibly tedious and limiting to workflow.
I think right now FCP X is good for hobbyists. Maybe it will improve over time. But for right now Apple could drop the program in the near future after they extract every dollar possible from the faithful.
Uncertainty is not a good foundation to build on.
Here's mine..... http://vimeo.com/59079568
Show me yours.
----------
You have no idea what you are even talking about.
----------
DXO ftw in RAW processing.
----------
I WANT Apple to bring this app up to full-speed for studio solutions..... that's why we waited 15 months after it's initial release before finally moving to Premiere. We were hoping to see the tools we needed for our studio. If Apple releases a FCPX 2.0 that has what we need, I'd happily take it for another test-drive and consider moving back if it fits our needs. Until then... I couldn't agree more.
There have been issues, in the past, where FCP X would fail while burning a disc and it's frustrating because you then have to go render the whole project again. To avoid this, I render it to the hard drive as an image and then use Toast to burn the disc whenever I need one.
This works well with DVD and Blu-ray.
As grossly outdated notion (if it ever was really the primary critical factor). Apple Retail stores see millions of visitors per week. There are about as many folks at Apple stores than Disney Parks
http://mashable.com/2013/02/13/apple-store-disney-compared/
The notion that folks largely won't find Mac products unless guided to them by the elite one-percenters is for the most part just an exercise in narcissism at this point.
Apple doesn't have any overt Mac advertisement campaign right now is selling over 10 million Macs per year. Far more than back when "evangelism" hotbeds were set up and supposedly driving growth.
There is nothing in the above motivating that the friends doing the influencing have to be in the 1% crowd. There are far more folks who own Macs that aren't Mac Pros than those in the Mac Pro class.
Similarly, Lots of folks wander though to see an iPod or iPhone will take a Mac for a test drive. There is a large factor of folks just not needed anyone else to conjole them into a purchase. With Disney Park like quantity of visits this is significant factor at this point. Coupled with not even a remote hint of financial instability (the 'nobody got fired by buying from IBM" effect) and it will be on many folks "take a look and consider " without any scaffolding.
Finally, to some extend Apple is still coasting on the Mac/PC campaign even years after they pulled doing new ads. As long as they have set up the vibe that "PC virus , quirks , etc ... Mac not" as long as there is a steady stream of "new virus , new quirk , new etc. " the preconditioning they have already set up will still buy something.
Apple needs to either get in or get out of delivering a Mac Pro product. It either needs to be consistently updated and moved forward while seeing unit sales growth or just quit. That's why it needs an update.
There is no "get out of jail free" card for the Mac Pro. All the excuses as to why it can't pull its own weight as a Mac product probably do more internally at Apple to add fuel to why it should be considered to be dropped then anything positive.
Several dubious and/or inaccurate assertions here.
1. Shake was initially released in 1997. Version 2 in 1999. Neither time on Mac OS. Apple didn't buy the company until 2002. If Shake didn't exist on other platforms it might have stayed around longer. The fact that is was a multiplatform app that Apple took single platform is a factor in why it went down.
You can spin the Apple purchase as "additional variant born on Mac OS" but "born" is in no way accurate.
2. Abandoned Aperture? Gee the MacApp store says it was last updated on Nov 12 2012. It was on roughly a two year cycle 2006, 2008 , 2010 , but now is more closing tracking Apple new approach of more incremental releases at a faster pace ( as opposed to two year, 'big bang' version number releases with a relatively much smaller set of bug fixes. )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_(software)#Version_history
Secondly, there always was a better natural fit between with the Adobe product mix (which has several photo editing apps) than Apple singular Aperture (and shared foundational library with iPhoto). There is a factor to both FCP and Aperature where Apple drives capabilities into the foundational OS libraries for all applications about as much as pushes unique features in the apps.
Thrid, as Lightroom's price came down and the photo processing got more robust it took off. It is multiplatform so it is going to have a much larger user base. Right now Lightroom is almost 1/3 of what it originally cost. The very high cost are a huge barrier for many users.
The mismatch between last iterations of Lightroom and Aperature is that Aperature is put focus on iCloud integration and reuse and foundational library ( iPhoto and core OS libraries) than on moving toward being a more robust touch-up/editing app. Not so much abandon but on a different path.
3. FCP Server was largely a big Java based app. Apple's historically dragging their feet on Java for that last almost 10 years .... you could see that one coming a long way off. Throw on top of that the heavy leveraging of Quicktime (not the new AV foundation ... granted it predates AV foundatoin by long way but the fact AV Foundation is Apple only iOS/OS X is another factor. ).
This was also another one of those clone Avid kind of things where more playing "competitive feature list war" than filling a critical gap. There are several media catalog server solutions out there that work with OS X. Apple just bought yet another one ( again not home grown ) and it was a bad strategic match ( bought right as the XServe was caving. ).
When separate company. http://support.apple.com/kb/TA24658
Bought http://9to5mac.com/2007/04/15/apple...lt-off-of-proximity-groups-artbox-enterprise/
Retired "Artbox dies twice " http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/249/1906
Premiere being 'kiss of death' says more about lame hiring practices and criteria than about the software. It says nothing about anyone's general skills.
Frankly, lots of folks moving to Premiere already owned it. They were paying for it and just not using it. Sure Apple's move made more folks take a second look at what they already had access to but honestly that a major problem even if lying latent at the moment.
The amount of FUD that is thrown around .... a PR campaign is primarily what they need. Apple has time and money to grow FCPX scope over time.
Displacing Avid isn't particularly necessary. If there are multiple high end NLE suites on OS X Apple doesn't need to do one. Just like they don't need to fill every single possible software application category with an Apple app.
There is actually something distinctly wrong with OS X if Apple "has to" play that role in a large number of categories.
The problem is that Apple was the king of NLE's with FCP7... they had the lion's share of the pro market. Now they are hardly a blip on the radar. It's not like they decided to not enter the marketplace with the other players, they essentially left the market which they were dominating.