Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

Final Cut Pro X Receives Minor Update With Performance Improvements, Bug Fixes

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
50,521
11,906



Apple's professional video editing software Final Cut Pro X received its first update in months this afternoon, adding a handful of new features, fixing several bugs, and improving performance and stability.

The update adds native support for the Sony XAVC-L and Panasonic AVC-Intra 4:4:4 files, introduces exporting of interlaced H.264 video, and allows users to import Canon XF-AVC 8-bit video files using the Canon plug-in.
What's New
- Native support for Sony XAVC-L and Panasonic AVC-Intra 4:4:4 up to 4K resolution
- Import Canon XF-AVC 8-bit video files with Canon plug-in
- Export interlaced H.264 video
- Asset management systems can include a library backup file when sharing from Final Cut Pro
- Fixes render errors that may occur when using reflective materials with 3D text
- Improves stability when swapping materials on 3D text with published parameters
- Improves performance when loading text styles
- Motion Title templates with published text layout parameters now export correctly
- Fixes an issue that may cause 3D text to appear dark when rendered
- Addresses issues with timing on certain animated effects
Complementary apps Compressor and Motion also received minor updates today. Compressor has gained bug fixes, support for exporting interlaced H.264 files, and an improvement to closed caption and subtitle audio and video sync. The update to Motion fixes a rendering error when using reflective materials with 3D text and an issue that caused some 3D text to appear dark when rendered. It also includes several performance improvements.

Final Cut Pro X, Motion, and Compressor received their last major updates in April of 2015, with Apple adding new features for motion graphics and enhancements to speed up video editing, packaging, and delivery.

Final Cut Pro X can be downloaded from the Mac App Store for $299.99. [Direct Link]

Compressor can be downloaded from the Mac App Store for $49.99. [Direct Link]

Motion can be downloaded from the Mac App Store for $49.99. [Direct Link]

Article Link: Final Cut Pro X Receives Minor Update With Performance Improvements, Bug Fixes
 

AcesHigh87

macrumors 6502a
Jan 11, 2009
956
294
New Brunswick, Canada
Out of interest, what is keeping the fcp7 users from switching to fcpx? What is still missing?

Track based editing and analog support are the two things that always held me back and also the two things they are never going to get.

I was a lover for FCP 7 but X just doesn't feel like a pro editing suite. The power is there but everything about it feels like it's aimed at amateurs.

Got used to Media Composer while working for a post studio and don't ever plan to go back. There are some things about avid that annoy me and always will but I feel at least Avid can do everything I need it to do.
 

Macyourdayy

macrumors 6502
Sep 9, 2011
351
155
Out of interest, what is keeping the fcp7 users from switching to fcpx? What is still missing?
Dunno, maybe the whole Pro look and feel and input options and settings and decades spent learning and fine tuning the interface and preferences and not releasing a half arsed iMovie Pro and dumping the actual pro app that thousands of businesses and major broadcasters and production companies were using?
Maybe not shooting yourself in both feet repeatedly by abandoning a suite of pro apps that companies had spent huge resources and time developing and learning?
I'm not saying FCPX is bad, there's just no way it was the next step in Final Cut, especially when it was released. Abandoning customers that invested (very) substantially in FCP while possibly (not likely though) a sensible financial move, was an insane PR and mindshare disaster.
 

campyguy

macrumors 68040
Mar 21, 2014
3,413
953
Not sure how accurate this is...
I'm going to qualify myself as being a complete n00b in video editing as it's not what I "do". I am, however, a civil engineer with a long history in engineering and analytical statistics with a focus on statistical modeling. The "unstated" quantities of that "survey" and resulting "graph" is, quite simply, the sample size. That linked-to post/article reeks and smacks of BS. For instance:
  • "On the plus side, Avid is cited for its power, reliability, work flow, features and linking." Cited? By who(m) - there aren't any citations listed. If the source was actually creating the "sample", they would have certainly cited their source. Not one of the "citations" are listed or, um, cited.
  • What is their sample size? It's not listed, which would scare me off as a client. Early in the post/article the "48% of respondents" bit would seem, to me, to be a joke. Having been in the marketing/statistical analysis game for almost 30 years, I look for numbers they're quoting. For example, think of "7s" - 1428578, which repeats endlessly. Any time I see a number like "43%" of respondents I think that something like "3 out of 7 people said". In 1994 I was hired to help with planning a light rail project that was intended to go to a public vote, and 85% of polled meeting members voted against extending the LRT project into **** County; I looked at the data and it turned out that the same 50-odd people were going to all of the public meetings - about 50 people killed a $4B project. The survey left out too much source data to be of real use - a sample size and number of respondents should have been included in their "report" to have any real meaning in the real world IMHO; leave out key data as to sample size and your "report" means pretty much the paper it's printed on. Paper's cheap, FWIW.
  • My additional counter? The thousands of FCPX users that are happy and making money are too happy making money or too busy working to bother with responding to an idiotic survey from a source they'd never heard of.
There's more that I could offer to punch mountain-sized holes in this "survey" (and, yes, I'm embellishing), but we all have other tasks we'd rather be doing.
The only other "thing" that's missing? A statement that reads something like this:
"Production Technology Survey, 2015", Sponsored by Adobe."

Disclosure: I use and subscribe to Adobe CC and also have purchased FCPX. I also printed out that Production Technology Survey, 2015 story and used it for toilet paper.
 

itsthenewdc

macrumors member
Jul 10, 2008
95
116
Orlando, FL
For the love of God.. I just want to be able to keep library files on a network drive and work from there. Keeping them local is such a hassle when sending back and forth between computers. I'm not going to spend 5 digits worth of money to get a SAN.
 

darcyf

macrumors 6502a
Apr 25, 2011
547
721
Toronto, ON
Track based editing and analog support are the two things that always held me back and also the two things they are never going to get.

I was a lover for FCP 7 but X just doesn't feel like a pro editing suite. The power is there but everything about it feels like it's aimed at amateurs.

Got used to Media Composer while working for a post studio and don't ever plan to go back. There are some things about avid that annoy me and always will but I feel at least Avid can do everything I need it to do.
I was once like you.

Then I decided to take the time and put in the effort to learn FCP X, with it's magnetic, single storyline with attached clips approach and worked through the frustrations that came with expecting it to be the thing and the way I was used to for years and years and... it turns out it's freaking amazing.

I go back to FCP 7 for old projects with clients from time to time and it feels like I'm editing with a stone tablet. Everything is so rigid and unresponsive and takes so many steps. I can edit SO much faster in X, which frees me up to be more creative and get more done in my day.

Track based editing served its purpose but it's an old fashioned way of doing things that is holding great editors who are afraid of change back. Take the next step and give FCP X an honest try. It won't be easy at first but it will be so much better in the long run.
 

joelypolly

macrumors 6502
Sep 14, 2003
429
49
Bay Area
I was once like you.

Then I decided to take the time and put in the effort to learn FCP X, with it's magnetic, single storyline with attached clips approach and worked through the frustrations that came with expecting it to be the thing and the way I was used to for years and years and... it turns out it's freaking amazing.

I go back to FCP 7 for old projects with clients from time to time and it feels like I'm editing with a stone tablet. Everything is so rigid and unresponsive and takes so many steps. I can edit SO much faster in X, which frees me up to be more creative and get more done in my day.

Track based editing served its purpose but it's an old fashioned way of doing things that is holding great editors who are afraid of change back. Take the next step and give FCP X an honest try. It won't be easy at first but it will be so much better in the long run.

This is a pretty common response to the new and unfamiliar especially when he learning curve is on the high side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AleXXXa

bradidimus

macrumors newbie
Sep 3, 2015
1
4
The ignorance from the FCPX bashers here amazes me. FCPX is used by millions of people worldwide. It has consistently been one of Apple's top grossing apps. I've been a professional editor for nearly 10 years and I've used Avid, Premiere, and old FCP. Trust me, nothing else comes close to matching the speed and efficiency of FCPX. This is not an opinion, this is a fact that's been proven over and over again, check out fcp.co if you don't believe me.
 

xmichaelp

macrumors 68000
Jul 10, 2012
1,815
626
Still people complaining about FCP X?

7 was a relic and needed a rewrite. It wasn't even 64 bit.
 

coldsweat

macrumors 6502
Aug 18, 2009
321
263
Grimsby, UK
The ignorance from the FCPX bashers here amazes me. FCPX is used by millions of people worldwide. It has consistently been one of Apple's top grossing apps. I've been a professional editor for nearly 10 years and I've used Avid, Premiere, and old FCP. Trust me, nothing else comes close to matching the speed and efficiency of FCPX. This is not an opinion, this is a fact that's been proven over and over again, check out fcp.co if you don't believe me.

Also why do Premiere users always seem to have a need to jump into any thread regarding FCPX & announce to the world that they use Premiere?
 

Manderby

macrumors 6502a
Nov 23, 2006
500
92
Out of interest, what is keeping the fcp7 users from switching to fcpx? What is still missing?
In constrast to other posters, I'm a hobby editor. And even I dream of purchasing something else. The only reason I bought FCPX was because it was the cheapest option and I do not have money for more nor is it really that important as I only do small edits. However, I do have special projects where I would really like to have some pro editing tools at hand. But there, FCPX does not deliver.

The UI becomes very laggy very quickly and changes focus too often, finding myself zooming the picture instead of the timeline 50% of the time, as well as changing playback position and audio volume accidentally. Little annoyances but ones which want you to smash your fist into the screen. Additionally, with the laggy UI, you often make mistakes, accidentally deleting or moving whole parts of complex edits. This in conjunction with auto-save killed I-dont-know-how-many-hours of work already. I am forced to manually export project backups and organize my raw material in a way I don't want and need and constantly need to clean up all temp folders to keep it simple. The magnetic timeline is just not how my ideas transfer to the screen. Again, lost many hours just because complex edits were attached as a magnetic timeline to a part which I deleted at some pointe without noticing the consequences. The lack of native output options in the base version and the insane rendering time was a downer.

Many problems can probably be solved by spending more money on the hardware. But as I said, this is a hobby.

I once had a student project where we used Primere. Learned, used, and completed the project within one day. After one and a half year using FCPX, I still feel behind compared to what I did back then.
 

jayducharme

macrumors 68040
Jun 22, 2006
3,846
3,828
The thick of it
For the love of God.. I just want to be able to keep library files on a network drive and work from there.
You can. FCPX can treat a network connection like an external drive. You just better have the bandwidth to handle it. 4K video editing over a network? That would need a huge pipe.

I found FCPX really frustrating when I first got it. But now I can't imagine using anything else. There seem to be a lot of people here attached to the concept of a conventional timeline and tracks. But that's not how FCPX works. For those who want to remain in the old paradigm, there are plenty of alternatives. But I love FCPX now.
 

goodcow

macrumors 6502a
Aug 4, 2007
628
331
For the love of God.. I just want to be able to keep library files on a network drive and work from there. Keeping them local is such a hassle when sending back and forth between computers. I'm not going to spend 5 digits worth of money to get a SAN.

Pretty much this. If Apple fixed this, then we could at least give X a solid look at work.
 

mw360

macrumors 68000
Aug 15, 2010
1,694
1,675
There's more that I could offer to punch mountain-sized holes in this "survey" (and, yes, I'm embellishing), but we all have other tasks we'd rather be doing.
The only other "thing" that's missing? A statement that reads something like this:
"Production Technology Survey, 2015", Sponsored by Adobe."

Televisual aren't idiots. They break down the survey respondents here http://www.televisual.com/read-reports-surveys/42/300/Who-took-part-in-the-survey.html and make it quite clear that it's a very small sample but of decent quality. The pinch of salt required should be obvious, but I don't think the survey was designed to be used in heated forum debates, especially Apple forum debates. It was just meant to be interesting.

Probably the most relevant part of the article is a single quote from one of the editors: 'I'm too old to learn anything else'. TV editing is a career that many take right up to retirement, so change should be expected to be slow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AleXXXa

martygras9

macrumors 6502
Aug 13, 2007
264
73
Haha, basically.
Not sure how accurate this is as people who voted were anyone that considers themselves an 'editor' and open to all professions and hobbyists:
http://www.televisual.com/read-reports-surveys/42/296/Editing-The-most-popular-systems.html
I was using FCP since version 1. When X came out, I gave it a try at the Apple store and just wasn't impressed. Told myself I'd wait it out to see how it'd progress. In that time, I migrated to Premiere. Being a heavy user of After Effects and Cinema 4D, the integration and dynamic links are unparalleled to what FCP X could ever offer in its current form.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jjhny

swester

macrumors regular
Jul 26, 2010
187
498
Yep, the majority of us are on Premiere and/or still rocking FCP7.

I find it completely unfathomable that anyone in 2015 would still be using FCP7, a 32-bit application based on a mid-1990s architecture that hasn't been updated in nearly a half-decade. Unless you are masochistic, perhaps?
 
  • Like
Reactions: poematik13

handsome pete

macrumors 68000
Aug 15, 2008
1,722
257
I find it completely unfathomable that anyone in 2015 would still be using FCP7, a 32-bit application based on a mid-1990s architecture that hasn't been updated in nearly a half-decade. Unless you are masochistic, perhaps?

I think a lot of editors don't need much from their NLE other than being able to import footage, cut it together, and export it. Most of the heavy lifting is being done in the DAW, compositor, and motion graphics package. So I can easily see people still hanging on to version 7.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.