Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
APPLE FINAL CUT PRO:HomeFCP ForumFCP XFCPX TechniquesFCP TutorialsFC ServerBasics ForumPodcastFAQ

Re: Thoughts on why FCP X is here to stay and the Mac Pro isn't.

COW Forums : Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate

VIEW ALL   •   ADD A NEW POST   •   PRINT
Share on Facebook
Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index   •   Read entire thread


Walter SoykaRe: Thoughts on why FCP X is here to stay and the Mac Pro isn't.
by on Mar 21, 2012 at 2:18:20 pm

We're pretty far off-topic now, aren't we? But since we're talking about Apple's sync and PluralEyes, I'll take a moment to offer another opinion.

I understand why Apple wanted to include a sync feature like this in FCPX -- it's particularly useful for dual-system audio with DSLR video, which I'd identify as one of Apple's big anticipated uses for FCPX.

However, I think the fact that they spent time developing this feature says a lot about their approach to both their third-party developer partners and their customers' needs.

Apple spent time and effort developing a syncing solution when they could have either paid Singular Software to do it, bought PluralEyes from Singular Software, or given Singular Software early access to FCPX so they could have developed against it had a launch release ready. Instead, they chose to develop their own version of the technology. They fundamentally threatened a partner's business, and they signaled to other developers that they were willing to duplicate third-party efforts and bundle it in the app.

Further, assuming limited developer time and resources and given the availability of a partner with good sync technology already in place, why did Apple prioritize first-party development of this particular feature for launch release? Why wouldn't they prioritize other things that were important to their users and that actually had to come from first-party development, like XML or broadcast monitoring?


[tony west] "That link seems to be gone."

Sorry, I wasn't pointing to the video -- I was pointing to the whole thread, which I'd encourage you to read. Jeremy G. and Craig S. both talk about how much faster and more reliable PluralEyes is than FCPX's built-in sync. Given their extensive experience with FCPX, that carried a lot of weight with me.

PluralEyes pops up in just about every conversation about FCPX's Synchronize Clips feature that I've seen.


[tony west] "I can see using this program with 7 but not with X... Have you used it with X Walter?"

I used it with FCP7 quite a bit. I haven't used it with X.


[tony west] "It looks like they want 149.00 for PluralEyes. Don't know if I want to spend that if X is working the way it is now for me."

Maybe it's worth it for you, maybe it's not. I don't know what your needs are, but you do. That's why I suggested you try the demo on your next hairy sync project and see if it works better.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Posts IndexRead Thread
Reply   Like  
Share on Facebook


Current Message Thread:




LOGIN TO REPLY



FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]