You do use the viewer and canvas simultaneously when doing multiclip editing, but I'm sure that this feature will be implemented in some way once the software is released.
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.
Video of Final Cut Pro X Introduction Now Available
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You do use the viewer and canvas simultaneously when doing multiclip editing, but I'm sure that this feature will be implemented in some way once the software is released.
That's my thought exactly. This is what I wanted FC to be all along. I found myself going back to iMovie time and time again because I was so sick of dealing with FC's quirks. This is going to make pro editing a pleasure.
I thought it was supposed to be easier to use and one didn't have to be a pro to use it.
This is more of simplification of pro workflows, organization, and needs. It isn't trying to become iMovie, it's trying to make what professionals do on a daily basis easier for them. At least that's the impression I get.
I'm extremely excited to see all the features they're bringing. This is already going to make my workflow a lot shorter so it can't come soon enough.
Just got back from NAB. I was at the SuperMeet.
Instead of repeating everything that everyone that has seen it...Ill just say that your post is bang on
Premature maybe. But I have an 8 core with 12 gigs of RAM (a poster child system spec for FCP currently not being able to take advantage of it) and I'm guessing:
12 gigs of RAM + 8 cores + GPU optimization > 4 gigs of RAM + 1.5 cores.
It might be a premature guess, but it's as safe a prediction as any I've ever made. ^_^
Final Cut Pro X is SO INEXPENSIVE, everyone will buy it.
Wow!
$299 is SO CHEAP for a professional video/film editor. Amazing.
It is a total impulse buy.
Apple wants to bring in everyone to create video - kids, high schoolers, college students, film school students, parents, etc. etc. etc.
Wow!
$299 is SO CHEAP for a professional video/film editor. Amazing.
It is a total impulse buy.
Apple wants to bring in everyone to create video - kids, high schoolers, college students, film school students, parents, etc. etc. etc.
I have my doubts. Apple seems to have only mentioned 64-bit. That doesn't mean they can't or won't support 32-bit, but I suspect they look at this as their chance to drop old 32-bit technology. Internally it would mean that they wouldn't have to maintain 32-bit code. That would be great for their developers.
They also didn't mention the OS X requirements. Given the June release date I'm leaning towards a Lion (OS X 10.7) requirement which so far requires 64-bit hardware. Late June would be Summer and Apple has said that Lion will ship in Summer of this year. Releasing Lion 2-3 weeks after the big developer conference, WWDC, sounds aggressive, but Lion has been in developers hands for some now.
There was a mention of it tapping into the technologies already in Snow Leopard as part of the demo, so I would expect it to run on at least 10.6. Forcing everyone to upgrade to Lion in order to use FCPX doesn't seem at all likely.
Last edited:
making our lives easier
first time poster. tho long time macrumor visitor
i couldn't help it. as I had just been working on a video running into all sorts of frustration as we editors usually do.. I was just as excited as the crowds with each new feature that was announced. can't wait!
some people wonder why people were so excited.. it's because the new features really take away ton of the frustrations we've always had with final cut. it'll save us time and make our lives easier. go apple!
and that price... apple is willing to incur opportunity cost (As professional video editors are willing to pay a LOT more for this, perhaps near 1K) for the hope of picking up tons of more consumer users... which they will. smart move.
- CleanCutMedia
first time poster. tho long time macrumor visitor
i couldn't help it. as I had just been working on a video running into all sorts of frustration as we editors usually do.. I was just as excited as the crowds with each new feature that was announced. can't wait!
some people wonder why people were so excited.. it's because the new features really take away ton of the frustrations we've always had with final cut. it'll save us time and make our lives easier. go apple!
and that price... apple is willing to incur opportunity cost (As professional video editors are willing to pay a LOT more for this, perhaps near 1K) for the hope of picking up tons of more consumer users... which they will. smart move.
- CleanCutMedia
You know, I wonder if they'll eventually implement something like DVD Studio Pro had where you could have a beginner / moderate / expert workspace preference?
Yes, FCPX is using tech already existing in SL, but we don't know what new underlying tech it uses. For instance, one thing they didn't mention is anything about QuickTime. Some expect that they using the AVFoundation framework being introduced to Lion. If so, they would have to bake it into FCPX to allow installation on SL, or supply an upgrade to SL with this new functionality, likely as part of a ProKit Update via Software Update. The simpler solution, especially for maintenance, is simply to require you to upgrade to Lion which will have AVFoundation, not to mention, other new tech.
The reason I'm not 100% behind requiring Lion is because asking so many to upgrade from SL seems a bit extreme to me too. It would slow down adoption of FCPX because so many users can't quickly move forward when they depend on other software & hardware. Still, I wouldn't put that requirement past Apple.
EDIT: In this video at about 4:14 the guy says 'leveraging the best of Snow Leopard'. That is an indicator that SL will be supported.
Last edited:
If you have an Apple store near by, go in and play with it after it is released.
As much as this 'looks like' iMovie Pro, it is high end software which requires a degree of commitment. In other words, a learning curve you have to buy into.
There is a big difference between speed of app launch/render bar/save etc and speed of editing.
All that hardware is great, but to that doesn't mean you can edit a piece quicker than you would with the current software on an older computer.
If editing where about having the fastest system, anybody could buy their way in to a job. People get hired for their skills.
Last time I read the phrase "written from the ground up" was in a press release for Office 2011. Which is why Word 2011 and Excel 2011 are fast, 64 bit, Cocoa apps with no dialogues that look just like the ones in Office 2004.
iMovie makes simple editing really quick. FCPX looks like it will do the same for complex work. It looks awesome, even if it bears no visual similarity with FCP7, what with it actually being written from the ground up.
iMovie makes simple editing really quick. FCPX looks like it will do the same for complex work. It looks awesome, even if it bears no visual similarity with FCP7, what with it actually being written from the ground up.
That's what I am thinking. It will probably have a much higher learning curve than iMovie or Elements. And the $299 is the straightaway price, not upgrade price?
It does look easier to use, but it has a tremendous amount of detailed functionality and there will be a learning curve to learn how to use it all, just as there's a learning curve to know how to use all the functionality of Photoshop or Illustrator.
IMO, this is not an app for the average Joe who wants to edit some bad footage of their dog or kid or goes to a concert and shoots shaky footage with distorted audio that they want to send to YouTube. Those people will stick with iMovie.
The problem for pros - those who edit high production value TV shows, features and spots - is that if there's just one pro need that's missing or badly implemented, then it most likely can't be used at all, no matter how great the balance of the product is. It remains to be seen whether that's the case or not.
From my perspective NOT working as a pro on a major show, it looks pretty spectacular. And for $299, it's remarkable - it could be perceived by the competition as predatory pricing. (It will cost me more than $299 to buy an effects plug-in package for Photoshop that I want to use for still photography.) But I actually think that price point will cause some pros not to use it regardless of its merits because it will be perceived as not being a pro application. And I wonder whether Apple priced it that low because it's missing some key functionalities necessary for pro use and therefore they won't even consider it in the same class as Avid.
As for the implication from other posters that the demo was presented to "fanboys" and not a pro audience, this was presented at the NAB show, which is most definitely a pro audience. But remember that the people most likely to show up are those who were already using current versions of FCP. But having said that, a few years ago at the Audio Engineering Society convention, I watched an Avid demo with the guys who mixed "24", which was also incredibly impressive. What they (and other major show/feature editors) would think about this product, I don't know.
But I don't want to give the impression that I'm negative. This looks like an incredible product that Apple gave a lot of thought (and resources) to for an incredibly low price. I also had fears based on the previous hype that Apple was going to simplify the product so much that it would have become useless for pros (or any serious use), but that absolutely does not seem to be the case.
That's a shame... maybe take some classes on FCP and you'll be happier.WOW!
I bought FCE for $299 in 2008 when I got my macbook. I have had trouble mastering it. I would get a somewhat nice video after hours of editing, only to render and playback to a blue "Not Rendered" video taking up 2gb of my hard drive space. So I uninstalled it, and it has been sitting in my drawer. I also needed more features with an easier interface, so I end up doing some work in iMovie (HD6 and 11) and then bring it into Adobe Premiere Elements 9. I did not want to spend $1500 on a full blown editing software to render nice blue screens.
Looks like FC is going to have the ease of iMovie and Adobe Premiere elements, but be very advanced so I will not be spending hours and screaming because I messed up syncing..
Very nice price tag too....
*Oh, and the only reason I chose Adobe Premiere Elements 9, is because Adobe brought back some of the stuff they stripped out - and i was a heavy user of the older version when I was on Windows.
Very looking forward to the new FC. No more messing up syncing to squeeze in a shot or some audio.
Adding to my wish list...
Did you post this problem here when it occurred? Dude next time ask around so we can all try and help you.
Ive been teaching FCP for 8 years now (basic to mid-level) and there are others here that are very experienced too
That was exactly my point. The newer software will actually take advantage of my computer whereas the older software is a bottle neck. You might've misunderstood my statement.
"12 gigs of RAM + 8 cores + GPU optimization > 4 gigs of RAM + 1.5 cores."
This is the SAME computer. One side is what Final Cut Pro X can take advantage of, the other side is what the current Final Cut Pro can take advantage of. If I don't have to sit and render audio and timelines every time I make an edit on some projects, you better believe that helps me edit faster.
And yes, I get that this doesn't make me "better" at editing. But if I get projects completed and to my clients faster, they'll sure as hell think I'm "better."
Last edited:
I'm hoping multiclip is even better in FCPX, seems like they now have the power to make multiclips of different codec/resolution so we don't need to have the exact same format for both camera angles. With automatic audio waveform syncing too...