Spot on. Unfortunetely people have very long memories and aren't very forgiving...I love FCP X, I think its the way editing should be...its so much more visual than other NLE's and as a visual learner that speeds things up.
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.
Should I go back to FCP 7.
- Thread starter gdeusthewhizkid
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Spot on. Unfortunetely people have very long memories and aren't very forgiving...I love FCP X, I think its the way editing should be...its so much more visual than other NLE's and as a visual learner that speeds things up.
who knows if they will bring back all the features of FCP 7 to x.1 versions....
In this case... I always though simplicity wouldn't be considered a "pro." Using FCP 7 would actually separate the identity of consumer like-amature vs. noob who's willing to be pro."
I literally do not understand your thought process for thinking this way. My screw driver is pink and purple, but I wired an entire house with it...it got the job done and in style. Who cares.
Exactly. I couldn't have said it any better. I am still more proficient with PP right now, but I could see that quickly turning as I'm really starting to warm up to FCPX. My past clients wouldn't give two ***** if they knew I edited their projects on PP, Avid, FCP7 or FCPX. As long as the finished product is what they were looking for, they're happy.
On the other hand, it does matter to the editor. If it takes me 5 hours less to cut the whole thing, well you know what they say. Time is money
Good question. Let me ask you this. What features still need to be added to FCPX to make it better than FCP7 for you?
5 hours less to cut something would be great, I think I'd use any NLE for speed in that case!Exactly. I couldn't have said it any better. I am still more proficient with PP right now, but I could see that quickly turning as I'm really starting to warm up to FCPX. My past clients wouldn't give two ***** if they knew I edited their projects on PP, Avid, FCP7 or FCPX. As long as the finished product is what they were looking for, they're happy.
On the other hand, it does matter to the editor. If it takes me 5 hours less to cut the whole thing, well you know what they say. Time is money
Good question. Let me ask you this. What features still need to be added to FCPX to make it better than FCP7 for you?
But the last question, I think allot of people who mindlessly bashed FCP X (not talking about anyone in particular) would come up empty with a response...after a few "myth buster like" articles about FCP X allot of people learned that the "missing features" were actually right in front of them and that they were coming at FCP X expecting it to be just like any other NLE which is crazy since it screams the opposite!
Exactly. I couldn't have said it any better. I am still more proficient with PP right now, but I could see that quickly turning as I'm really starting to warm up to FCPX. My past clients wouldn't give two ***** if they knew I edited their projects on PP, Avid, FCP7 or FCPX. As long as the finished product is what they were looking for, they're happy.
On the other hand, it does matter to the editor. If it takes me 5 hours less to cut the whole thing, well you know what they say. Time is money
Good question. Let me ask you this. What features still need to be added to FCPX to make it better than FCP7 for you?
EVERYTHING from FCP 7 and more.
Lol right? I prefer the E46 type BMW 3 series but I didn't complain when BMW switched it up with the newer E90. Its called progression....I feel like editors like making life hard on them selves or slower to either charge more or feel better....Oh well.
Your sarcastic comment to my sarcastic comment was unoriginal. Plus, you still have named a single thing. What else should I expect?
I have done editing with final cut for years now and it comes down to what are you editing, and what are the current specs on your pro?
Editing on an older machine still works just fine. I used a PowerMac G5 with FCP for years and I loved it. Render times got a little ridiculous with full HD but that was the payoff with keeping an older machine. BUT it still ran and when it came down to it NO ONE said "oh you must have edited this on an older machine" Remember its the final product that matters not how you got there. Older machines are just as capable of delivering your art as the "latest and greatest"
Now if you wana get some more speed from your MP get a SSD for your system and finalcut, get a second mechanical drive for your Scratch disk. You'll want a new graphics card but you don't have to go crazy. Look for a Nvidia card in the ~$200 range and that will be fine. Maybe bump up your ram(again i don't know what you have)
I think you have a very capable machine. I loved FCP but the interface isn't very user friendly if you are new to it but the trade off is if you can learn that then all other editing software comes pretty naturally.
Use what you like, like I said your machine can definitely handle whatever you throw at it (I think final cut pro has had 4k RED support since 06 or 07) the only downside is time between renderings.
Enjoy your new MacPro!
thanks for the great reply.. I have a 2006 mac pro with 1 tb as main drive . a 250 gig for audio tracks and 2 500 gigs of additional HDs for snow leopard and leopard. It's currently my fastest machines even with being 7 years old it's a beast..
the render times on fcp7 are mad slow. that's why I love x so much.. What else can I do to increase the speed for render times..
Rendering relies almost exclusively on processor speed so unfortunately what you have is what you have. Switching to solid state drives and more ram will help a little but nothing really noticeable. Its basically the same thing as if you used the app Handbreak to re-encode formats if you watch a system monitor it uses almost 100% processor and nothing else really.
-I would say get a video card (2gb is enough all its really doing is making sure your monitor gets the resolution your editing in and enables you to use multiple screens and that helps out A LOT on Final Cut)
-Get a SSD for your OS/Apps... and use your 1TB as your scratch disk, loops, etc... The SSD doesn't have to be huge(mines a 256 for my os apps and such) because all of the other stuff is going to go to the mechanical/larger drives.
-Have at least 8Gb ram just to be safe.
None of these are really going to speed up rendering but it will make finalcut snappier in every other instance.
Well...literally i meant everything..and no sarcasm...
how about loading old projects into new program, yah?
Last edited:
Well...literally i meant everything..and no sarcasm...
how about loading old projects into new program, yah?
Technically, that isn't a feature missing from X that's in 7 because there was no X before 7.
You could always use this: http://assistedediting.intelligentassistance.com/7toX/
well i do appreciate this...and really....never meant to be all sarcastic about anything.
This! For a cheap Nvidia card check out the GT 660Ti...I believe its in the $200~ range and while it isn't a beast like a GTX 680 it definitely is a HUGE upgrade. Also I would consider an SSD for both the OS/Apps as well as another one of similar size as a scratch disk. I use a 180GB SSD via USB3 for video editing and its great, now it will never be able to be used on large projects but projects that are in very high bit rate codecs or frame sizes are much easier to deal with...also if you have a ton of events on an SSD FCP X loads much faster I've noticed.....once SSD's come down in price I'll be looking at 768 and 960GB SSD for scratch drives but for now a one or two small SSD's and a handful of HDD's is fine.
I'll be editing video on my soon-to-be-ordered 27" iMac. And naturally, all my media will be stored on external drives.
And while I'm aware that an all flash internal drives would be the fastest option, my specific concern is about the effects of using a larger 1 TB Fusion drive vs a smaller 256GB or 512GB all flash drive.
Will the general computer functions suffer in any way by having a smaller--but faster--internal drive? The all flash 1 TB is too expensive so I'm considering the 512GB option. Thoughts?
Thanks.
And while I'm aware that an all flash internal drives would be the fastest option, my specific concern is about the effects of using a larger 1 TB Fusion drive vs a smaller 256GB or 512GB all flash drive.
Will the general computer functions suffer in any way by having a smaller--but faster--internal drive? The all flash 1 TB is too expensive so I'm considering the 512GB option. Thoughts?
Thanks.
I would say get the smaller 256 SSD internal. Its more than enough for OS/APPS, then get a 1TB external. If youre ordering the new iMac it has Usb3.0 and the external will be nearly as fast as if it were inside the computer. I know right now external 3.0 seagate drives are going for ~$100 for a TB.
Computer functions wont suffer at all in fact it will be very fast. I just did a set up with my MacPro with a 256 SSD and all my programs and OS fill up about 50gb. I also just did this setup on my friends 2010 MBP with a 160GB SSD and a 1TB external. Now that system doesnt have USB3.0 and his system is still very very fast.
Thank you VERY much for the thumbs up, UncleSchnitty (great handle!).
I feel more confident now. I think I'm gonna get the 512GB--just to be safe.
But I'll keep it to the minimum on RAM. Then remove the come with RAM when it arrives, and then max it out with 32GB of cheap Crucial RAM so it's consistent.
Sound like a plan?
I feel more confident now. I think I'm gonna get the 512GB--just to be safe.
But I'll keep it to the minimum on RAM. Then remove the come with RAM when it arrives, and then max it out with 32GB of cheap Crucial RAM so it's consistent.
Sound like a plan?