FORUMS: list search recent posts

Dear FCPX team,

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Luke Hale
Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 4:22:19 pm

Dear FCPX team,
Thank you for your willingness to innovate at an uncomfortable rate. Yes your editor sucks for almost everything that involves collaboration or communication outside of my standalone editor (monitoring, OMF exports, external file storage ex….). Some things that I rely on are simply not there, however a salute you for your courage. Non liner editors have become a remix after remix of the same old crap. None linear editing has been extremely clumsy from the very beginning and your magnetic timeline makes huge steps in the right direction. Taking a step back and looking at the process rather than just asking us what we want, would have saved you a few thousand professional customers but the fact remains that your bold move will shape avid, adobe and all other editors in the future. I would be very disappointed in any editor released in the future that does not make it as easy to keyword your footage, or any color correction tool that does not have a color match function, yes I also now expect every editor to have audio sink capabilities ( I just hope it will work a bit better than yours). The sad truth is that as loud as I screamed in the beginning I cannot bear the fact of deleting your product from my computer. I hope the rumors are true and that you will work to solve all of our complements but for now you don’t meet all of my needs and I will be using another software as my primary editor. FCP X has become a funny little tool in my utility belt that I am sure I will continue to find uses for.


Return to posts index

Paul Jay
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 5:40:15 pm

Xml integration with davinci and smoke soon.


Return to posts index

Morten Ranmar
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 5:47:23 pm

What about "reconnect media" ?
Heavily missed!

- No Parking Production -

2 x Finalcut Studio3, 2 x MacPro, 2 x ioHD, File Server w. X-Raid
.... and FCPX in the garbage bin


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 5:47:27 pm

Funny post! Love it.

CatDV moves FCP7 to FCPX with caveats:

http://www.squarebox.co.uk/fcpxml.html

Resolve 8.1 will support FCPX too.


Return to posts index

Bill Hall
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 6:55:36 pm

What I don't understand is if CatDV can provide a kludge to make it work why couldn't Apple have it working out of the box


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 7:04:28 pm

[Bill Hall] "if CatDV can provide a kludge to make it work why couldn't Apple have it working out of the box"

Because Apple has now demonstrated that they will only integrate "hooks" for external developers to use, rather than writing those modules themselves. View it in the same context as a plug-in.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Simon Ubsdell
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 7:27:39 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Because Apple has now demonstrated that they will only integrate "hooks" for external developers to use, rather than writing those modules themselves. View it in the same context as a plug-in."

I'm sure there's a good reason for this but as time continues to slip by I really can't for the life of me see what that reason could be.

In fact, I have only two words for Apple on this subject right now ...

Automatic Duck.

The first third party partner fell at the first hurdle - how well does that bode for the future?

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 7:37:13 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "The first third party partner fell at the first hurdle - how well does that bode for the future?"

Maybe Adobe made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

Blackmagic bought DaVinci, Avid bought Euphonix (and a bunch of others), Adobe purchased Iridas. It happens.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 7:58:54 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " It happens."

Not saying it wasn't a predictable occurence - it does rather look as though Apple didn't predict it though, which is my point.

They were pinning their colours to the mast of third party developers in a big way and with the very first example of this in action, the very first, everything goes West in fairly short order.

How is that meant to make me feel confident that their business model of third parties taking up major parts of the slack is actually going to be something to rely on from one week to the next?

The big irony of this for me is that the week Automatic Duck defected to Adobe was actually the week I had earmarked as being the one where I would take the plunge and buy their product so I could start busing FCPX in anger. That option just went away for me - no OMF, no FCPX. It just won't work for me without - period.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 8:01:41 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "That option just went away for me - no OMF, no FCPX. It just won't work for me without - period."

I hear ya. There'll be others.


Return to posts index

Glen Hurd
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 9:44:19 pm

It's kinda weird - in the hardware side of business people are always saying "Buy what you need. Don't wait for the future, since it comes with no guarantees."
But in FCP X land, there's a prophet on every street corner.

The weakness with Apple's "let the 3rd party developers solve these problems" is that it makes for an inherently inferior product - for now the product not only has to rely on the ongoing development of a somewhat psychotic company, but also on 3rd party developers who, by and large, are kept in the dark about future developments as much as we are. And if at any time those 3rd party developers stumble, the entire value of the product takes another dive.
We're not talking about plugin developers who are offering a new "solar-flare" plugin, where a sudden lack of development only effects a small percentage of production. These are critical features that define whether the entire package can be useful or not.

Let me present the problem this way. Imagine there is a car on the market that has special tires. These tires have to be made specifically for that model car - no other tires built anywhere will work with this vehicle. Period.
Now imagine the car manufacturer doesn't make those tires. In fact, when the car is sold, you buy it from the dealer with only its rims. So in order to drive that car into Broadcast Town, you need to buy those special-made tires from someone who makes tires - just for that car.
Oh, and the car has few admirers (mainly instructors and prophets and friends of the car manufacturing staff).
Who here would buy that car? No internal support from the car company - not even a contract with some poor sweat shop. Nada.
I have a bridge to sell, too, if you're interested.

And the argument that this is intended to encourage more involvement of 3rd party development is silly. How can they develop when the price of the FCP X is below the price of the one 3rd party app that used to support it? Where's the room to grow? I know a little about business, and this is the dumbest model I've ever seen.
It's also terribly vulnerable to competitors. Look at what just happened to AD. Even if Adobe didn't need them to help design a workflow for their Iridas package, all anyone has to do is buy out or influence those who are coming up with these essential solutions, and - blammo - no competition. Hell, I'd develop a workflow just so I could be bought out!

What "muggle" is going to commit to a product that requires multiple companies to keep up development for it to even gain traction into the future? If Apple can't commit to making these essentials part of the package, then only three types of editors will be using this package: the prophets who can see the future of Apple and 3rd-party development, the disciples of Apple who are terrified of leaving the harbor in which they've lived for so long, and those with a curiosity and lots of extra time to explore - knowing full-well they may simply be learning an already dead language.


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 10:36:01 pm

[Glen Hurd] "And if at any time those 3rd party developers stumble, the entire value of the product takes another dive.
We're not talking about plugin developers who are offering a new "solar-flare" plugin, where a sudden lack of development only effects a small percentage of production. These are critical features that define whether the entire package can be useful or not."


Thanks for bringing this up, as it's been largely ignored up until now.

With FCP, every time there was an update (or even an OSX update), it was common for some number of plugins to quit working. I remember a QT update that broke the keyer from Red Giant. It took months to get it identified and fixed, and only because I did all the heavy lifting. In the case of FCP, they were optional add-ons, not required plugins.

Now, Apple can bring out frequent App Store updates, and then we can all hold our breath while we discover what "mission critical" 3rd party plugins no longer work. Or we could just wait 6 months for the plugin update, though by then we might have another FCPX update, and then we are in a perpetual loop... without hystoris loss to save us.

As an inebriated Avid salesman once pointed out to me, Apple's strength was vertical integration... they made the computer, the OS, and the editing software (and companion programs). Now it's gone. Riding herd on all your required plugins will be like being a kindergarten teacher... i.e. like "herding cats". If you're using something like RapidWeaver, then you know exactly how serious this can be.

I think Apple may underestimated the effect of this phenomenon...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com


Return to posts index


Benjamin Mullins
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 14, 2011 at 3:15:49 pm

Glen Hurd
The weakness with Apple's "let the 3rd party developers solve these problems" is that it makes for an inherently inferior product - for now the product not only has to rely on the ongoing development of a somewhat psychotic company, but also on 3rd party developers who, by and large, are kept in the dark about future developments as much as we are.

I agree absolutely, if Apple are going to rely so heavily on 3rd party developers they need to build much better relationships with them, and open their communication channels a lot wider. What incentive is it to be forced to play catch-up when 3rd parties can simply develop for someone else like Adobe who seem to handle relationships a lot better. Most businesses try to plan as far ahead in to the future as possible in order to maximise stability, but how can anyone do that and work with Apple when Apple sneak around like a Ninja doing everything in secret?



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 14, 2011 at 6:11:39 pm

[Glen Hurd] "..."

First, I'd like to ask you, do your clients call you and say, "This time, we want to pay you 3x the money and you will have four times as long to complete it!"?

If so, stop reading. You are a god.

[Glen Hurd] "And if at any time those 3rd party developers stumble, the entire value of the product takes another dive.
We're not talking about plugin developers who are offering a new "solar-flare" plugin, where a sudden lack of development only effects a small percentage of production. These are critical features that define whether the entire package can be useful or not."


So let me get this straight. Because there is the chance of competition (as in more than one plugin or workflow developer) which then creates diversity, you would rather be reliant on one company to supply the format support, the organization, the interface, the codec, the tech support? Or would you rather have a choice? I do not think diversity is a fatal concept and as a matter of fact will allow us as users to talk more directly with the parts of the application we need. To me, that sounds like it doesn't suck.. Do you deal with tech support at all? In your experience, which is better, dealing with small companies, or big ones? Who is more motivated to makes things work for everyone?

[Glen Hurd] "What "muggle" is going to commit to a product that requires multiple companies to keep up development for it to even gain traction into the future? If Apple can't commit to making these essentials part of the package, then only three typeIs of editors will be using this package: the prophets who can see the future of Apple and 3rd-party development, the disciples of Apple who are terrified of leaving the harbor in which they've lived for so long, and those with a curiosity and lots of extra time to explore - knowing full-well they may simply be learning an already dead language."

How many "types of editors" are there in total? What do they all need?

How is this any different than FCP Legacy?

Or any other company?

Or any other software? Or life?

One day it's there, the next it could be gone. Better have fun while it lasts? Other recently re-heralded video product companies have made business mistakes, including completely shutting down support for entire platforms, but now they are forgiven. And who's to say they won't screw up again? A point release of their own software might break something. Do you think they do it on purpose? Do you realize just how hard development like this is?

Obviously, Automatic Duck had a decision to make. That decision was to abandon ProTools/Avid, Quantel, Autodesk and of course, Apple, at least for the time being, and good on 'em. They must have seen an opportunity. Do you think Smoke users are pissed? Do you think they won't survive and their foundation will crumble because the Duck swam to a new lake? Maybe there are other companies/individuals/developers who see this as an opportunity?

Look around here. There are many stories of the gear, equipment, formats, technologies and ideologies that have vanished. Are those people still working? Did their clients notice a difference? Did they quit?

A local dub house here in town had just purchased a second SR deck to handle more and specialized workloads, and then the tsunami struck. They had viable business one day and made the investment, and now they are still struggling to get tape stock, and what has happened in that time? People started looking around for other ways to deliver. They too, have some decisions to make. Does that make them prophets? What does Sony owe them? They bought what they needed, but it's been a little rough and very tragic.

Nothing is guaranteed. FCP Legacy had an awesome run. It was old. It was time to stop dragging that legacy around. From a technological perspective, the wheels were just about to fall off, and there was plenty of duct tape. Luckily, it was popular enough to make other companies around a bit smarter and more attentive. Who do you think is ultimately going to benefit from that?

Let's talk about dead languages for a second.

If you study Latin, you might learn something about the greater function of language. The beginning. The roots. After all, it is the basis of many languages throughout the world. It seems to me that by studying the "dead language" of FCP, many other companies have acquired the very foundation of a transfer language that works across platforms. Terrible, isn't it?

[Glen Hurd] "magine there is a car on the market that has special tires. These tires have to be made specifically for that model car - no other tires built anywhere will work with this vehicle."

You are missing the forrest for the trees. They are tires. Interchange protocols are formats. Tires/rims/axels have standards (6,5,4 bolt, etc), as do interchange protocols. If one person can build it, so can another. It's the very nature of the game. In your example, you buy a new set of rims and tires. Done.

Here is my thoughts on third party development.

I think this is really smart. The video business is becoming very fragmented. This can lead to specialization ("we only shoot, Red, man") or it can lead to generalization ("I have SD, 720p, 1080i, 23.98, 59.94, 29.97i, , 29.97p, 5k, 4k, Alexa, Beta, DV, Digibeta, 7000fps, MPEG4, MPEG2, AVI, wmv all going in one timeline. Help me"). Camera manufacturers are developing their asses off right now. There is some really healthy competition out there. Film, is truly dying. This means that every manufacturer is going to have their way of doing things. By creating a proprietary digital system, this means you need to support a proprietary method of handling that media. So, with all the variety out there, would you rather have a specialized system or a generalized system? What if you could create a specialized system depending on your needs? What if you could turn the specialized system in to a more general system ? This is how I see third party support working in FCPX. FCPX will provide the underlying language and method, then people would be able to hook in to this to interact and interchange. When Red's 28k sensor comes out, we won't have to wait for Apple/Avid/Adobe to develop a method, Red will have to support it in FCPX. They have the hooks, go to town. Support yourself.

Now apply this to OMF, AAF, XYZ, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS and Discovery. If you need specialization, you purchase it and interact with that developer who will listen and respond to you directly. I do not see this as a bad thing. Apple broke their own stuff, (Qt/itunes Updates causing FCP craziness) so owning the whole system didn't prevent them for making mistakes. Things break sometimes. Apple has a pretty decent developer relationship going. They have leveraged that relationship to everyone's advantage. Why can't this happen with FCPX and why is it a bad idea? Sure it's a new idea, but is it a bad one? Look at Lightworks. Open source. Is that a bad idea?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 16, 2011 at 9:44:51 pm

Jeremy,

If you're ever out here in Scottsdale, I'm buying dinner.

You get it.

Peace.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 17, 2011 at 2:32:02 pm

[Bill Davis] "Jeremy,

If you're ever out here in Scottsdale, I'm buying dinner.

You get it.

Peace."


Ha! I wouldn't go so far as to say "I get it", but I thank you none the less!

Jeremy


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 16, 2011 at 9:55:15 pm

No, it's not a bad idea at all. But right now what I need is not there to purchase from third parties. I think the big question is how long people are willing to wait.

And I'd buy you dinner too. Whether you get it or not.

bigpine


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 17, 2011 at 2:45:14 pm

[TImothy Auld] "No, it's not a bad idea at all. But right now what I need is not there to purchase from third parties. I think the big question is how long people are willing to wait."

Yeah, it's a big question. As a matter of fact, I think Intelligent Assistant is launching Xto7 today which will allow sending a sequence from X to FCP7 and all that goes along with that (OMF, XML, EDL, Color, etc and so forth). I also heard it's $49.95. I'm sure we will know more later today.

Jeremy


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 8:30:27 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "They were pinning their colours to the mast of third party developers in a big way and with the very first example of this in action, the very first, everything goes West in fairly short order."

An important issue here is that Apple destroyed the FCP ecosystem in the way FCP X was launched. Developers are now hoping that there is a large enough base in FCP X to warrant development. Yet much of this development won't pay off at the prices they have been able to get. Plus, will non-pro users buy any third party apps and plug-ins at all?

Another issue is that there is no actual plug-in architecture for FCP X filters. You have to go through FxPlug 2 in Motion 5 and then publish rigs. As such, most FxPlug filters that have been modified to run with Motion 5/FCP X (FxPlug 2) are either limited or quite buggy. For instance, some of the FxFactory plug-ins work properly and some don't, because of FCP X's effects palette.

No offense to Simon (and please don't take this personally), but the proliferation of free effects presets based on existing tools, doesn't exactly encourage developers to put effort into paid filters. I think the freebee filters are a great effort, but there's probably not enough interest left for a lot of expensive new filter sets.

These are all part of the equation that I feel will tend to keep FCP X in isolation.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 8:37:52 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Another issue is that there is no actual plug-in architecture for FCP X filters. You have to go through FxPlug 2 in Motion 5 and then publish rigs. As such, most FxPlug filters that have been modified to run with Motion 5/FCP X (FxPlug 2) are either limited or quite buggy. For instance, some of the FxFactory plug-ins work properly and some don't, because of FCP X's effects palette."

Does 10.7.2 fix some of this or is it more the structure of the app? Red Giant seems to be pleased:

http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/blog/2011/10/12/osx-lion-and-red-giant-happ...

The original post seems to bring up interface issues:

http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/blog/2011/08/08/update-on-magic-bullet-and-...

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 8:43:10 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Does 10.7.2 fix some of this or is it more the structure of the app? Red Giant seems to be pleased:"

I think that this post was in reference to Lion and FCP7, not FCPX.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 8:47:18 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I think that this post was in reference to Lion and FCP7, not FCPX."

Hmm. Seems vague, you are right.

Apologies.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 11:12:23 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "
Does 10.7.2 fix some of this or is it more the structure of the app?"


That's for the current products, including MB Looks II. In that selection, only Mojo works with FCP X. The trouble RGS/MB have is that they use custom GUIs (Colorista II) and hooks to external apps (LooksBuilder). None of this is doable right now in FCP X and maybe won't be in the future. Right now, if you can't do it with a slider, image well or color picker in FCP X, it doesn't work.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 14, 2011 at 2:09:03 pm

[Oliver Peters] "That's for the current products, including MB Looks II. In that selection, only Mojo works with FCP X. The trouble RGS/MB have is that they use custom GUIs (Colorista II) and hooks to external apps (LooksBuilder). None of this is doable right now in FCP X and maybe won't be in the future. Right now, if you can't do it with a slider, image well or color picker in FCP X, it doesn't work."

Again, I apologize. I was too eager.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 9:02:35 pm

[Oliver Peters] "An important issue here is that Apple destroyed the FCP ecosystem in the way FCP X was launched. Developers are now hoping that there is a large enough base in FCP X to warrant development. Yet much of this development won't pay off at the prices they have been able to get. Plus, will non-pro users buy any third party apps and plug-ins at all?"

Great post! Apple's rough treatment of third-part developers has not gotten nearly enough air time here.

Apple has chosen to move downmarket, and it's going to be very hard for developers of niche products to keep their margins high enough. By way of example, this forum was filled with complaints over the high cost of the erstwhile Automatic Duck OMF exporter a couple months ago.

Apple also seemed to play favorites for launch. Noise Industries had a launch day release, but others like Red Giant and CoreMelt didn't get advance notice. Look at Baselight -- they were toiling away on their very impressive FCP7 plugin, only to have FCPX sweep the rug out from underneath them.

The fact that APIs weren't available before launch, let alone months after, suggests to me that third-party support was not a development priority -- despite the fact that Apple is relying on third parties to overcome some of FCPX's limitations.

If Apple was going to break plugin compatibility in FCPX anyway, it sure would have been nice if they had adopted OpenFX...

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 9:10:45 pm

[Oliver Peters] "No offense to Simon (and please don't take this personally), but the proliferation of free effects presets based on existing tools"

Ouch, so it's all my fault now!!!!!

To clarify, the third party solutions that interest me at this point are the ones that provide essential interfacing that absolutely should have been implemented by Apple and not left to the open market and patently unreliable third party providers.

I want OMF, AAF, EDL (plus of course broadcast monitoring, multicam - which may or may not be coming direct from Apple for all we know) and quite a lot else besides - I think everyone is very familiar with the list by now. FCPX won't get any serious take-up in the professional market until someone shows a very clear commitment to providing these things.

In my mind the provider should be Apple - I don't want scissors and paste, belt and braces Heath Robinson fixes from vendors who may or may not be in business tomorrow.

I don't think the "proliferation" of a few very basic effects is really the issue here - though I suspect you're not being entirely serious? Actually my hope would be that third party effects creators will raise the bar somewhat as a result the relative ease of making the basics. If you are going to be paying good money for an effects package it should genuinely contain advanced innovative coding that can't easily be achieved "in the home kitchen".

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 11:07:55 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Ouch, so it's all my fault now!!!!!"...."I don't think the "proliferation" of a few very basic effects is really the issue here - though I suspect you're not being entirely serious?"

See, I asked you not to take offense! ;-) Not your fault at al!! I think all the various free presets offered by you and others here on the COW are great. And thank you, BTW.

The issue is that there is no proper effects architecture in FCP X at this point in time. My concern is that FCP X users - adjusted to a lower cost host and many free options - won't appreciate the difference between the current status and the other options. Definitely not at the pricing developers have appreciated to date. You can already see that in GenArts Sapphire Edge, which is a template-based version of the Sapphire filters at a far lower price than the full Sapphire filters in FCP 7. Edge is currently in beta for FCP X.

You'll notice that the UI design of FCP X effects totally doesn't allow for custom filters, like Colorista II and it looks like there is also difficulty in linking to an external plug-in manager, like Tiffen Dfx or MB Looks. In the end, if the market can't make up the difference in price with volume, then these developers will simply go elsewhere. As a result the product suffers, because you are left with less versatile solutions.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Geert van den Berg
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 9:29:42 pm

I think that the next version of Logic Pro will also have FCPXML import.

From there it will be easy to make an OMF export or even better AAF. And in between you'd even be able to re-arrange some of the audio to better organize it.

Pricewise Logic Pro isn't more expensive than Automatic Duck and will be more usefull even if you won't mix with it.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 9:37:53 pm

[Geert van den Berg] "I think that the next version of Logic Pro will also have FCPXML import."

Actually, I am very much hoping that the new Logic will be a useful missing piece of the puzzle.

However, I still need to be able to create final mixes in ProTools - and be able to hand off to others to be able to mix in ProTools. It's not something I have any choice over, which is why OMF is a massive issue for me.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Gerald Baria
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 14, 2011 at 12:17:58 am

"I'm sure there's a good reason for this but as time continues to slip by I really can't for the life of me see what that reason could be.
"


Their giving business to their software partners. Its how you snag in more developers and support to your platform, give business partners holes to fill.

Quobetah
New=Better


Return to posts index

Jim Glickert
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 13, 2011 at 7:06:18 pm

If the FCP X team should respond, I hope it isn't like this phony letter I drafted a few months ago in a moment of extreme sarcasm. This thread seems to be a good place for a little bit of humor today. Sorry for hijacking it.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Ferrari 458 owners:

We hope you’ve enjoyed your ownership experience with the 458. As you know, the 458 is considered the finest sports car ever made, and it comes after years of research and improvement over previous models.

In the past two years, we’ve been developing, without doing any market research among our existing owners, an entirely new vehicle. We’ve not said anything about it publicly other that to say it’s going to be “awesome”. As you may know, Ferrari is owned by Fiat, and Fiat makes cars by the millions for the vastly larger consumer market. We’ve decided to take one of the consumer-level Fiat models, add a state-of-the-art battery-powered motor, and call it the Ferrari 458 X. It’s the new paradigm of automobile. It’ll be priced much cheaper than the 458, as we’re hoping to sell millions upon millions of them, and adding “Ferrari 458” to the name will certainly help do that. For a limited time, we’re also giving every new buyer a beautiful magnetic replica of their 458 X to attach to their refrigerator. (Certainly you’ve heard that magnets are the latest fashion in everything, right?)

Unfortunately, the new 458 X won’t have many of the features of the 458 at the introduction, but we plan to add some of them at some point in the future. Or, maybe some other company will come along and provide those features instead. Sorry, you’ll just have to wait and see.

So, as of today, the 458 is no longer available for purchase. Yes, you’ll still be able to drive your current 458, but in time you’ll find that parts are no longer available, as the vehicle has now officially been designated “end of life”, and we’re not going to fool with it anymore. We’ve moved on, and so should you.

If you don’t like what we’ve done with the new 458 X, then you’re just a big whiner stuck in the old way of thinking about automobiles, and perhaps should just go buy a Lamborghini or Bugatti. We won’t miss you. Fiat, our parent company, makes far more money off of its other businesses, and buyers of those other products that Fiat makes are not nearly as demanding as you.

If you have any complaints, please take them to an automobile discussion forum, not to us. We don’t care what you have to say. After all, we’re Ferrari, and we know a lot more than you. Now please shut up.

The 458 X Team


Return to posts index

Greg Burke
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 14, 2011 at 3:05:40 am

[Jim Glickert] "If the FCP X team should respond"

I think you mean Apple Marketing team...

I wear many hats.
http://www.gregburkepost.com


Return to posts index

Bill Hall
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 14, 2011 at 12:39:41 pm

Greg Burke I think you mean Apple Marketing team...

Isn't it the same thing?


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 17, 2011 at 6:14:28 am

Just terrific!


Return to posts index

Mark Palmos
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 14, 2011 at 9:40:34 am

Apples "brave move" will shape adobe and avid? God, I hope they aren't so stupid as to dumb down and spoil a perfectly good editing paradigm with some gimmicky magnetic nonsense. I expect they are quietly chuckling at apples massive miscalculation.
Mark.


Return to posts index

Luke Hale
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 17, 2011 at 7:42:37 pm

Parts of the magnetic timeline are very clunky and trying to bypass it with the positioner tool is a joke, it inserts slugs instead of leaving blank space. But I do love the fact that when I make a change I don’t have to change things downstream. I think Avid and Adobe will take the best parts of it and use it.

Luke Hale
Producer/Editor BYU-I and Department of Energy
opticalsmarts.com (Just for fun)


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Dear FCPX team,
on Oct 17, 2011 at 8:15:55 pm

[Luke Hale] "it inserts slugs instead of leaving blank space."

And how do you see this as being any different? The gaps left in FCPX are more powerful and controlling than the "blank space" of FCP7. Also, Avid also has the idea of gaps. They are trimmable, effectable and generally more powerful than what FCP7 offers, and closer to what FCPX offers, but even better.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]