Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by damekian, Sep 19, 2011.
When is it coming? Summer is over in a few days.
We don't know, Apple hasn't given us much of an indication as to how soon it will be ready, however I do expect it in the next month or so. I've had a good experience with FCP X and aside from a few known bugs I'm not sure what they're going to put in but I'm excited
I start teaching FCPX tomorrow night (night class).
I look forward to a major update.
However maybe after a month so I dont have to redo my course notes.
All kidding aside, yes we need it.
I think and this is coming from a true FCPX believer, the update will be huge and just fixes not crazy additions e.g. all machine support, FCP round-tripping etc..
Crossing fingers here
It's just reported on 9to5mac that 10.0.1 is out this morning, though the App Store has yet to receive it.
Anyone confirm? I can't until tonight.
Still the same version from Canada.
Yet to see it on the App Store but here's a page on Apple.com detailing what's new: http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/software-update.html.
Also noticed there is a Compressor 4.0.1 update.
9to5mac sourced from CNET. Here's the link:
Very, very interesting.
Check the bottom of the page... looks like they've accepted they need to be more transparent.
Coming in early 2012
Broadcast-Quality Video Monitoring
Looks like they're not entirely abandoning the pro's...
Awesome, I was right... update came out! I'm going to download it and see how it iz.
I wonder what's changed in Compressor. I love most of it, but man QMaster/Administrator's reliability is flaky.
I never thought they were abandoning the "Pros" simply because that word is to broad to be meaningful. Granted they've left out a lot of key features, but it's still a remarkable piece of software.
I appreciate the transparency, but I was hoping for both of those by year's end. I figured a quick bug fix update and then a bigger update come Novemberish. Oh well.
anyone know if i download the free trial and or purchase it later, if it will screw up my FCP 7?
(I'm on 10.6)
The fact that it's going to take almost a year to get this feature alone is mind boggling.
It's nice to see the update, but I wouldn't get ahead of yourself there.
Good on them for the 30 day trial as well.
No. FCP X will put your FCS into a new directory. I haven't had any issues so far.
It's not mind boggling if Apple never originally planned on those features being in there at all. From things I've heard hear and there since the reveal at NAB it didn't sound like much thought was given to multi-cam or proper monitor via a broadcast monitor. If that's true, I can understand it taking Apple a while to figure out how to implement things like this which weren't in FCP 10's 'DNA'.
Wow, talk about seeing the glass half empty... early 2012 means January, February or March. That's less than 6 months away... less than half a year, not "almost a year".
The cup is 3/4 empty perhaps...I assume the clock started ticking at the point of FCPX's release, not at the release of the update.
I remember my former boss saying "wow, that it took them nearly five years to implement this feature is mind boggling!" (IIRC, it was the multicam)
This whole discussion puts me somehow into a time machine 12 years back. The same whining now as it was then.... "not for us pros" - "a toy" - "complete lack of features" ....
Don't forget, you pros, FCP wasn't really an able editor until 4 or 5.... and how long it took Apple to get there.
I never understood this argument. Is Apple incapable of taking what it's learned in the last decade of making FCP and applying that to the new program so it's more ready to go right out of the gate instead of needing a 2-3yr rolling start? FCP already 'matured' into a capable application, why should Apple get a free pass for rolling back years of progress. Why is it okay that FCP 10 is the functional equivalent of FCP 4 or 5?
I think a more likely scenario is that Apple is no longer chasing the customer it was w/previous versions of FCP. They will get around to that customer base eventually, but their primary focus is else where.
You maybe right but lets not forget that its up to us to make this a pro app. If some of us can make money on this doing the web/straight to media route then bonus.
I use Avid at work with a Nitris DX. I swear in the past two years I might have used the digital to tape transfer just twice. Most finals are BD, XDCAM or ProRes files.
I'm not 100% sure if Apple ever wanted to chase "pros" with FCP. Somewhere in an interview Michael Wohl (IIRC) mentioned that his Steveliness wanted to give it away for free with the purchase of a Power Mac as kind of an iMovie on steroids.
I doubt that Apple will take as long to get FCP X on track as with "Classic" version, but IMHO, they have built it for the new generation of professional editors, the small one seat-shop, just like mine. The number of these shops is growing dramatically, while the number of huge post houses seem to go down.
A further step in Apple's quest for democratizing video production?
From my experiences coming from a smaller market, the one-person shop is more common than the four person post-house.
Chances are, both sides would only purchase one copy of FCPX.
As far as Apple's motives, I dont care if the stopped supporting the Pro world.
There are many vendors that will pick up the pieces.
Its just the way things are in this business.
I've read an interview w/one of the original devs that worked on FCP 1 and he said that Randy Ubillos' goal, surprisingly, was to chase down Avid. Who knows, maybe the divide between Randy and Steve has been there since the beginning?
I'm sure they'll get it up to speed faster as well, but, at least at this stage, I see FCP 10 as being a step back, not forward for smaller shops due to FCP 10's short comings and the loss of the other aps in the suite. I also don't like the sudden loss of flexibility in an app that had grown to be so flexible. In it's current form FCP 10 feels more like a web-centric app to me where as FCP 7 can run the gambit from web to broadcast to film workflows. I remember back when the transition from SD to HD was first happening and if you wanted HD on Avid you had to drop nearly six figures for a whole new setup and if you wanted HD on FCP you just had to spend a few grand for an HD capture card (and possibly faster storage).
Yes, but from a professional perspective I don't think FCP 10 can do near the damage that FCP v1-7 did. I feel like FCP classic has leveled the playing field and all FCP 10 can do is come in for mop up duty. I mean, honestly, if you can't quickly recoup the cost of FCS you should probably rethink your business model.
I know that Apple is trying to encompass both the old FCE and FCP markets w/FCP 10 but I wonder what concessions they'll ultimately make trying to span such a large, diverse customer base.
Remember when Randy came back from vacation with the idea for First Cut in his mind, and Steve made iMovie08 out of it?
I'd assume that Steve is after the web and thinks film and broadcast are dead (just like optical media)
I think they also want be a counterweight to the rather successful Sony Vegas. At least, they beat them in price.
I do remember and iMovie08 made a lot more sense after finding that out.
Funny you brought it up because I was thinking about commenting on this but thought it would be too off topic, but since we are here...
I think for editors, and other people whom are content creators, the new media vs old media thing isn't about the delivery medium (web vs b'cast, tv, film, etc.,) but about the type of content. The buzz words right now are premium content vs non-premium content.
Non-premium content is basically stuff that is difficult or impossible to monetize. For example, funny cat videos on YouTube. Sure, it could get a bazillion hits but no viewer will fork over cash to see it or sit through a pre-roll ad and very few, if any, advertisers will pay money to be attached to it.
Premium content is the opposite. For example, an episode of Law & Order on Hulu or renting a movie from the iTMS. People will pay for access to this content and/or be willing to sit through commercials and advertisers will pay money to be attached to it. Hulu does a tiny amount of the traffic that YouTube does but Hulu is profitable where as YouTube is a money sucking black hole.
Long story short, because it's the end of the day, the expectations and production pipelines and process aren't going to change very much for premium content whether or not you get it via Netflix, Hulu, b'cast or Blu-Ray / DVD. And now that more and more HDTVs are receiving streaming content 'web delivery' viewing is no longer limited to a relatively tiny window on a computer monitor. People watching things on big screens expect it to look good.