No he doesn't. Any routines that was written for high performance was most likely written in C, or assembly. All of my C routines that I have ever written play fine when inserted into my Objective-C projects. Assembly code is a different beast entirely and has nothing to do with your IDE, and everything to do with your chip.
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.
iMovie '08 Was Originally Called 'First Cut', Ubillos on Final Cut Pro X
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No he doesn't. Any routines that was written for high performance was most likely written in C, or assembly. All of my C routines that I have ever written play fine when inserted into my Objective-C projects. Assembly code is a different beast entirely and has nothing to do with your IDE, and everything to do with your chip.
All in all a good post but you clearly don't work in a team network environment and therefore have missed what the majority of complaints are about: Professional tools that existed in FCP studio have been taken away. Why?
Oh and good luck trying to be FLUID now if you have to edit more than 2 synced camera angles!!
The piece you linked to from the Cow is a pretty standard MONTAGE cut. I don't see how X would have improved the workflow or 'released' the editor to explore new ways of expression. The results could have been very quickly achieved with any NLE piece of software: Cool shot <cut> Cool shot <cut> Slow-Mo Cool shot <cut> This particular style of editing works very well for the content, however it no way addresses anything that an editor might come across with a more complicated scene, ie multiple cameras that need syncing ala concert footage... Nor does it address the complex nature of storage/editorial decision making process when editing a narrative feature film.
In fact there is a major flash-frame of un-color-processed material there (around 2:05 or 2:06). Oops! Now that's an epic fail from an editor posting/exhibiting his 'professional' editorial thoughts on FCPX and how easy it is to edit! Guess he forgot to edit.
Last edited:
Not the End of the World
I had FCS 3 (w/FCP 7) on two machines. I accidentally overwrote FCP 7 on my main workstation. So instead of banging my head on a wall, I figured I'd just dive into this iMovie Pro app that they call FCP, ha!
At first, I was too disgusted to even play with it, but then I started watching Ripple Training's lessons. As I worked through the lessons, I learned shortcuts and ways to organize and SEE media in a much more intuitive way. For instance the new way of making subclips, not having to scroll through tiny thumbnails to see content of a clip and the smart collections/keywords are priceless!!
I have yet to get to the actual editing part of the tutorial, and I expect it to be different, but I see it as a slight learning curve that can be overcome with mastery.
The great flaw is that it's not a Final Cut Pro level app. It is an iMovie Pro level app. Apple really should NOT have come out with this prematurely, or they should call it what it is and tell pro editors that the new FCP is on the horizon, then release it when it's READY with pro features. Had they done that, I do believe that people, even the pros, could adjust to the iMovie-like interface and a few learning curves.
I'm angry at myself for accidentally overwriting FCP 7 with TONS of filters *crying*, but I am kind of excited about learning X. And I have 7 on my other machine, so it's really not a big deal for me.
For others, I applaud your outcry and hope that Apple addresses this fast before production houses scrap FCP and I can't get a job!!!
I had FCS 3 (w/FCP 7) on two machines. I accidentally overwrote FCP 7 on my main workstation. So instead of banging my head on a wall, I figured I'd just dive into this iMovie Pro app that they call FCP, ha!
At first, I was too disgusted to even play with it, but then I started watching Ripple Training's lessons. As I worked through the lessons, I learned shortcuts and ways to organize and SEE media in a much more intuitive way. For instance the new way of making subclips, not having to scroll through tiny thumbnails to see content of a clip and the smart collections/keywords are priceless!!
I have yet to get to the actual editing part of the tutorial, and I expect it to be different, but I see it as a slight learning curve that can be overcome with mastery.
The great flaw is that it's not a Final Cut Pro level app. It is an iMovie Pro level app. Apple really should NOT have come out with this prematurely, or they should call it what it is and tell pro editors that the new FCP is on the horizon, then release it when it's READY with pro features. Had they done that, I do believe that people, even the pros, could adjust to the iMovie-like interface and a few learning curves.
I'm angry at myself for accidentally overwriting FCP 7 with TONS of filters *crying*, but I am kind of excited about learning X. And I have 7 on my other machine, so it's really not a big deal for me.
For others, I applaud your outcry and hope that Apple addresses this fast before production houses scrap FCP and I can't get a job!!!
Last edited:
Halleluja, Praise Steve.
Well, it is nice that you had some fun with, and insights into FCP X.
Now what are all the video professionals going to do with FCP X the coming time? Starve to death?
You just spoke my mind, because I didn't have the mental co-ordination (or time) to write a comment like this, today. Finally, someone ELSE understands that creativity means moving images/film/motion graphics around to tell the story or evoke an emotion, NOT wrestling with the (separate) technical learning curve that is older style NLE & compositing software.
I don't care what chemicals are in the glue that I'm using to stick my cuttings to the backboard, or what metal is in the staples I use to fix something to a wall, I just want to fix it to the wall in a certain way, and move on, without breaking out of "the zone". Having to overcome the barrier (and it is a GIGANTIC barrier) that is the learning curve of all the intricacies and mechanics of NLEs, is a massive road block between me and my vision, see?
It took me over 6 years to learn Photoshop to a level where I can finally throw something together, without even a second though of "oh, what does that tool do" - I have recently stopped learning by 10x, and started creating by 100x!
Great post, and it's hard to explain what you explained, to non-creative people, but you did a sterling job doing so!
Thank you, FINALLY!
It seems that the iphone crowd has awoken... It's alive!
Seriously now.
The learning curve of "older style" NLE compositing software? Come on. Yes it is a bit steep compared to iMovie, but I am an amateur an I could find my way in FCP within a few days of trial an error (and browsing through the manual).
And what creativity entails... I doubt that the above is going to be an eye-opener for the profesional editors.
Its extremely ironic (and lost on many here) that open architecture is what attracted people away from AVID to Final Cut in the first place.
Final Cut Pro X's closed timeline is EXACTLY why we ditched AVID 10 years ago, because it limited you in so many ways!
It's a step backwards, and I think noob editors here will one day understand why.
Final Cut Pro X's closed timeline is EXACTLY why we ditched AVID 10 years ago, because it limited you in so many ways!
It's a step backwards, and I think noob editors here will one day understand why.
A very good post on the Cow that addresses every professional editor's concern regarding FCPX, without inflammatory blanket statements. Again, the irony though is that David Pogue has anything to do with this conversation other than the simple fact that it seems that [admitted flame] Apple is gearing the future final cut releases for the consumer and iMovie to the grandmother. [/admitted flame]
http://library.creativecow.net/harrington_richard/Pogue_Answers/1
Oh and just a side note to explain how ridiculous it is that Apple is using Pogue as their platform to answer X criticism.... This is a direct quote from Pogue's original blog about the FCPX release and how those durned professionals got all up n arms 'bout it:
"I wrote my review from the perspective of an advanced amateur; I’m not a professional editor. I made four movies with Final Cut Pro X, including helping my son with a 20-minute final eighth-grade project."
Don't that just say it all folks?
http://library.creativecow.net/harrington_richard/Pogue_Answers/1
Oh and just a side note to explain how ridiculous it is that Apple is using Pogue as their platform to answer X criticism.... This is a direct quote from Pogue's original blog about the FCPX release and how those durned professionals got all up n arms 'bout it:
"I wrote my review from the perspective of an advanced amateur; I’m not a professional editor. I made four movies with Final Cut Pro X, including helping my son with a 20-minute final eighth-grade project."
Don't that just say it all folks?
Last edited:
A Short Education
For those not understanding why the pros are angry - watch this, I think it explains it well - hopefully you might see why there is serious feeling on this:
http://vimeo.com/25624693
For those not understanding why the pros are angry - watch this, I think it explains it well - hopefully you might see why there is serious feeling on this:
http://vimeo.com/25624693
Considering he is asking a lot of questions the Pro's are asking, it does not really what skill level he is at, or if he uses FCP X to do his sons eighth-grade project. Does doing the same project in FCP7 make it any more amateurish or any more professional? Its just all editing in the end.
It does matter that he is first and foremost NOT an editor, nor is he a PROFESSIONAL EDITOR. I would have no problem with his review, nor would I have a problem with Apple using Pogue as a spokesperson to funnel out their answers to inherent major problems with.... iMovie.
I like reading Pogue. He is funny and entertaining. I'll take a look at a review of an iPhone from him... But how can you take anything seriously when it comes down to reviewing and retorting what is supposed to be a professional product that many editors and post-production houses have invested their future in?
If you read what he posted, he is clearly saying that pros should stop their whining and learn to figure out where many of the features have been moved to. Pogue clearly hasn't a clue about anything technical. He does demonstrate however that FCPX can be easily used by just about anyone... And that is my point: Right now, it appears that Apple may be slowly edging away from a REAL post-production tool in order to concentrate on their consumer base which is where their stockholders want them to be. The professional arena does not represent any significant value to the overall value of the company.
Last edited:
Could we please stop this FCPX is not professional level stuff? Is it so hard for you guys to write what you mean? It’s not broadcast-level. There is much work one can do professional OUTSIDE broadcast…
@boraxatude: Why do you think pro-tools have to be so hard to use that “normal” users don’t get them?
@boraxatude: Why do you think pro-tools have to be so hard to use that “normal” users don’t get them?
I can see where its ideal to have an actual editor asking these questions. But unfortunately its not.
But it does answer a lot of questions these professionals have about FCP X. Maybe not in depth or all questions.
Don't necessarily care what Pogue thinks about FCP X, but more importantly what is Apple saying about the subject and that is what matters most in the article.
But it does answer a lot of questions these professionals have about FCP X. Maybe not in depth or all questions.
Don't necessarily care what Pogue thinks about FCP X, but more importantly what is Apple saying about the subject and that is what matters most in the article.
Oh I misunderstood. My only advice in this case is to not use the new one. If no one buys it, apple will get the picture pretty fast.
Um I guess because the product is meant to be used in a professional mixing environment? The big difference between so-called pro and sumer products are the level of working detail offered to the user.
It depends on how much media you are dealing with. It depends on the level of control you need over that media. It depends on whether or not you need to be able to offer deliverables in a variety of formats and frame rates.
If all you need is something a little easier to use than FCP Studio or Pro Tools, then by all means crank up iMovie. For the vast majority of users, it is a fantastic tool and could have easily been used in place of FCPX in that example that was linked to in another post on the cow.
But if somewhere down the line, at the most simplest of levels (pun intended), what are you going to do when the third post house involved with your edit complains that your blacks are crushed? Oops. Back to 'sumerville for you, my friend.
Linuxcooldude: Exactly the point. Apple has responded to these initial concerns THROUGH POGUE. He unequivocally states that he worked in conjunction with Apple to address the backlash from the professional arena. Get it?
But that doesn't mean that even pro applications could not gain from having their usability improved. I sometimes feel like there is a bigger worry about the "pro" epithet in creative fields, than in many other fields.
That's different from contacting all affiliates and telling them to stop developing for XP. That's what my friend who works for a gold MS partner dev company got a month after Vista was released.
As I've already mentioned, it sucks that Apple stopped support for FCP7, it might be cold and harsh, but the strongest way to push forward.
Yeah, your implying they are using someone who is not that experienced in their product. I'm more interested in Apples responses to the questions. Since he is obviously not experienced in this field, he got most of his questions from somewhere else. My guess is the problems that the pro's have with this software to begin with.
I absolutely agree...
As other posters have stated: This is not an argument about the interface of FCPX (anyone can learn to adapt) it is an argument over why Apple has dropped a slew of features and functionality in the studio version that have been extremely important as a production tool in the professional workplace... ie multi-camera editing/xml/omf export/non-standard frame rates and aspect ratios/backwards compatibility with what ever editor has in their machine now - FCP7... just to name a few.
Just to take on multi-camera editing: I remember that I stayed with AVID as long as I did simply because there was no efficient and FLUID method to edit mult-camera. FCP finally delivered.... And now they've taken it away? HUH?
Do you think Apple are worried about all this negative feedback? Or do they think they're so untouchable they don't care?
your asking a loaded question. Either way looks bad, just the way you worded it.
I don't think Apple really cares about the negative feedback, because they already knew how people would respond.
This is nothing new. People have reacted like this with similar changes in the past. OS9 to Mac OSX. iPods, iPads & iPhones.
Once the program has matured I think people will see what they are trying to do.
BIG SIGH.
A quick google yielded this from another computer forum:
"After a consultation with Final Cut Pro X's product managers at Apple, Pogue addressed the concerns of the professional video editors in a question and answer style post. "
Again, very strange that professional users on the cow for example have resorted to addressing their concerns back to Pogue since he clearly has Apple's ear!
Does that seem right to you? Seems a little backwards to me. Imagine your professional bookkeeper/accountant having some immediate questions and concerns about a quickbooks release that drops all mac interface functionality and Intuit answers your concerns through a David Pogue post about how easy it is to balance his checkbook with the new web interface version of quickbooks.
Pogue is an Apple "slut"
The legal concept is "plausible deniability".
Apple can defuse negative reactions by saying "Pogue, tell them that we're going to do 'X' to fix this". Pogue, as an Apple mouthpiece, says that.
The sheep stop bleating for a while.
But, a year or two later, Apple hasn't "done X" to fix that. The sheep start to bleat again - but Apple says "we never said that, it was Pogue".
It has happened time and time before, and until the sheep get wise Apple will pull this stunt time and time again.
The legal concept is "plausible deniability".
Apple can defuse negative reactions by saying "Pogue, tell them that we're going to do 'X' to fix this". Pogue, as an Apple mouthpiece, says that.
The sheep stop bleating for a while.
But, a year or two later, Apple hasn't "done X" to fix that. The sheep start to bleat again - but Apple says "we never said that, it was Pogue".
It has happened time and time before, and until the sheep get wise Apple will pull this stunt time and time again.