FORUMS: list search recent posts

Well - it's "early" 2012

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Steve Connor
Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 3:00:51 pm

I'm feeling hopeful that an update will be coming soon, but there again I'm an optimist, as an FCPX user you have to be.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Jari Innanen
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 3:39:22 pm

The Advanced Editing book by Michael Wohl should be out by March 30 (estimated), so there might be some clue...

http://www.creativeedge.com/9780132885218

Apple Certified Associate, FCP X


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 3:45:52 pm

It will still be early 21012 for months. NAB is early in the year (first third of the year). I've got my monopoly money on late March to permit any cooperative third parties like AJA or Blackmagic show their wares with it at NAB.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index


Andrew Richards
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 31, 2012 at 5:44:10 pm

[Andrew Richards] "I've got my monopoly money on late March to permit any cooperative third parties like AJA or Blackmagic show their wares with it at NAB."

Looks like I laid down my Monopoly money about 12 hours too soon! This is why I don't gamble when I go to NAB...

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 5:36:28 pm

Steve, do you like to use Motion or AE?

It seems like people who like Motion are more willing to work with X than people who like AE.

I like Motion myself so that's why I was willing to at least give X a try.

I can see why someone who is not a Motion fan would not feel tied to X and more likely to move to Prp.

I was wondering if anyone else sees this pattern.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 5:59:52 pm

[tony west] "It seems like people who like Motion are more willing to work with X than people who like AE.
I was wondering if anyone else sees this pattern."


It was definitely a factor in our decision Tony.

That said, I'm still a bit stunned by the awkward new "workflow" and lack of round tripping.
I can't even imagine why they removed the ability to round trip from FCP.


Return to posts index


Matt Trubac
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 6:07:30 pm

I think its less that they removed it and more they haven't added it in yet. Does seem like it would be a priority though. I think its more useful than the publish feature.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 6:30:00 pm

[Matt Trubac] "
I think its less that they removed it and more they haven't added it in yet. Does seem like it would be a priority though. I think its more useful than the publish feature."





Well it was there and now it's gone so I think "removed" it is the accurate term.

Unlike X, Motion is a true upgrade. They didn't change the editing paradigm or even the content, it's the same program - but for some absurd reason they limit you to a one way experience regarding integration.

As you say, Publishing is no replacement for round tripping.
It's fine if you want to start a project in Motion and then bring some design elements into X, but disabling the ability to get footage from fcp into motion, literally removed it's best use.

I could even live with not re-opening the project directly from the X timeline - but not being able to export or import footage from X is just retarded and has none of the "this stuff makes more sense as I learn it" mojo of much of fcpx experience.


Return to posts index

Matt Trubac
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 6:34:53 pm

My guess is that it is simply an issue of finalizing the FCPX xml and "upgrading" Motion 5 to understand it. If Motion 5 is a pure upgrade will it take a "send to motion" from FCP7?


Return to posts index


Jim Giberti
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 7:23:26 pm

[Matt Trubac] " If Motion 5 is a pure upgrade will it take a "send to motion" from FCP7?"

I don't mean to say it's a "pure upgrade" Matt but that it's not a rewrite and virtually the same concept with a few tweaks.

I haven't tried working with Motion % and FCP7. To be honest, since making the change to X, I went whole hog and haven't opened up 7 in a couple of months. any existing work I had there I reimported and started new inX.
I really do like it that much.

And I think/hope you're right about the xml being the issue.
It would be nice if Apple could communicate these things.

With Apple, I constantly feel like I do when I'm in the middle of a lousy argument with my wife and there's no communication.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 7:42:37 pm

[Jim Giberti] "I don't mean to say it's a "pure upgrade" Matt but that it's not a rewrite and virtually the same concept with a few tweaks."

Strictly speaking Motion 5 is a 64 bit rewrite which is quite a big deal - which would probably also explain why there are a few bits "missing" from the previous version.

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 9:44:04 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Strictly speaking Motion 5 is a 64 bit rewrite which is quite a big deal - which would probably also explain why there are a few bits "missing" from the previous version.
"


Exactly, which is what I mean by the disfunction that passes as Apple communication.

Imagine that what we all hope for, an actual way to use Motion again as the front end compositing/animation tool for fcp, is just a temporary set back because of the rewrite.

Now imagine removing that singularly important function from your shiny new rewrite without communicating to the users that count on it, that it's a temporary set back and will be addressed asap.

You've just imagined what I've been trying to figure out for months - why Apple is so unwilling to be a forthright partner regarding anything they do.

They've created an unnecessary love/hate relationship with too many of their adherents.
They need to realize that really smart people are often really ignorant regarding certain aspects of their duties.

Like politicians in DC, they need to get out of their Cupertino bubble and get some outside assistance in basic communication skills.

At this point I'd offer them my firm's services for free.


Return to posts index


Matt Trubac
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 31, 2012 at 2:37:01 am

There is a lot to like, and I wish I could jump in and stay, but there are some show stopping issues for me. The biggest two I have found that kill workflow are the bloated project files and no multicam.

I do some weddings and the multicam feature in legacy really speeds things up for certain portions of those edits... like getting a rough cut of the ceremony together from 3 to 5 cameras.

We tried cutting a ceremony in X recently by syncing multiple cameras stacked in their own story lines. We would find the shots we wanted and copy them into a "master" secondary storyline above everything else. Somewhere along the way I realized things weren't quite in sync and I couldn't find a definitive point where the problem started. I think it was the result of someone auto syncing and not doing a full check to ensure accurate sync.

I decided to start from scratch and manually sync up all the DSLR files. After getting all of the clips connected I grouped the clips from each camera into compound clips. Then I pasted all of my newly synced compound clips into the old project and started putting the cuts in based on the old edit. With four 1 hour long compound clips, and the original master storyline with source clips the project grew to almost 400MB. Every time I added a new cut X sat with the beachball spinning for about 45 seconds before I could jump to the previous edit and add another cut. Every cut slowed things down more and more. I was wishing I could turn off the auto save because I think X saving after every change I made was the bottleneck. It was really obnoxious.


Return to posts index

Mark Morache
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 31, 2012 at 6:25:18 am

[Matt Trubac] "I grouped the clips from each camera into compound clips"

I would say that there are things you can do to minimize project bloat, but I think the correct way to think of it is that there are bad things you can do to accelerate project bloat.

Editing by sliding and dicing large compound clips is a sure way to bloat your project beyond belief, and it's not necessary.

Each time you blade a compound clip, you effectively double the data needed to keep track of that clip. Why do that? If you have a one hour compound clip, and you use the blade to create a one-second shot in your timeline, the one-second still contains the edit data for the entire hour of footage. Having five 3-second trims of your compound clip edited together is still like having 5 one-hour clips in your timeline, because each slice of your compound clip is a different copy of the long sequence. If you open one slice of the compound clip in timeline view, and make a change to it, it doesn't affect the other clips. They are all independent. This is why it's a bad idea to edit by slicing and dicing compound clips.

There is no need to put ALL of your clips in a compound clip. It would be much smarter I think to put the footage in a secondary storylines.

I've had pretty good luck working with multiple cameras by placing each camera in it's own secondary storyline, syncing it up, then adding edits to choose the portion of the camera clip that I want to select. I think the secret to making this work making sure you don't remove the unwanted footage from each separate storyline, but use the V key to disable all the bits of each camera that I want to turn off, thereby keeping all the footage intact. Y

It's awkward compared with the multicam in FCP7, but I expect the update will take care of this, and will add much joy back into our lives.

I find it's pretty easy to run through each camera and select the portions that I want to use for sure.

You can't see all of the camera angles at once, but if you are using the blade tool or trim tool, as you move the tool over each clip, you can see the footage in the viewer window.

Be careful with your compound clips.

---------
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can't stop thinking about her.

Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
http://fcpx.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Mark Morache
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 31, 2012 at 6:30:11 am

I've suspected that they don't have round tripping because motion has tracks, and FCX doesn't. To add round-tripping would mean Apple would have to admit that they COULD translate an FCX timeine into a track-based timeline, and we'd all scream "they why can't we open an FCP7 project in FCX?"

It seems like a vital function that everyone is bitching about, and they'd be smart to give it back to us.

I really miss having a motion clip in the timeline, and selecting "open in editor" to make a change, then re-rendering in the timeline.

Not everything can be done by publishing an effect.

---------
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can't stop thinking about her.

Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
http://fcpx.wordpress.com


Return to posts index


tony west
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 31, 2012 at 2:34:02 pm

[Mark Morache] "I've suspected that they don't have round tripping because motion has tracks, and FCX doesn't."

I think you might have nailed this Mark.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 31, 2012 at 5:34:15 pm

[tony west] "[Mark Morache] "I've suspected that they don't have round tripping because motion has tracks, and FCX doesn't."

I think you might have nailed this Mark."


Motion has tracks? I would say it has groups or containers (like another Apple program we talk about here). It doesn't have a V1 A1A2 structure at all.

My guess is that the motion project structure and the FCPX project structure don't jive quite yet. I except this will change, eventually.

I must have missed this mention, but Compressor and Motion got point updates as well today.

Where's Herb Sevush? Wonder what he thinks about the 64 camera angle mutlicam.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 6:20:22 pm

I agree Jim. I don't know what the thinking was there.

While I have you Jim, I also have a question for you. I have seen some of your post on the forum and you
seemed to really know your way around sound production.

Can't say that's been my strong suit.

Having said that, the audio effects tools that are in X seem pretty impressive to me. Many of those tools are unfamiliar to me.

What are your thoughts on that tool set?


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 6:35:09 pm

[tony west] "What are your thoughts on that tool set?
"


I think the integration of the Logic FX and controls is what makes this genuinely capable as a complete finishing system, even in it's immature incarnation.

IF you look at audio mixing differently using the metadata and trackless concept then it's all you need to do what you would do separately in a dedicated post environment. If you've got a pair of accurate monitors and a reasonably controlled listening space, you can do it all right there.

Did you download the document that goes through all of the Logic features Tony?

That would be a great start to using them.
In the meantime ask away.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 6:49:27 pm

Thanks Jim for the response. I was kind of thinking that but I needed to hear it from someone like you.



[Jim Giberti] "Did you download the document that goes through all of the Logic features Tony?
"



Yes, I did Jim (the one from Apple Logic effects reference) and I have my work cut out for me.

When I look at something like the Tremolo Effect, I say to myself "what the heck? " : )

Sound is a world to it's self brother. LOL


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 7:12:03 pm

[tony west] "When I look at something like the Tremolo Effect, I say to myself "what the heck? " : )

Sound is a world to it's self brother. LOL"



Oh yes it is.
But as a jazz musician once told me regarding that idiom's confusion to pop musicians - "it's still a limited body of information Jim".

Here's my first big audio tip:

FORGET ABOUT STUFF LIKE THE TREMOLO EFFECT.
Some of the Logic controls are as superfluous as barn door transitions.

Likewise most of the transitions and visual FX. While there are some great looks to start with, most of it is junk you'd never use in a project.

With the audio learning curve, stick to learning EQ, Level Control and a little Spacial ontrol.

Here's my second audio tip :

Master the Logic Channel EQ and you've got all you need for track by track adjustments, Learn the Logic Limiter and you'll have what you need for output control, Learn the Logic Space Designer (Convolution Reverb) and you'll be able to add subtle and FX that will rival any studio.
If you add the Logic Multipressor to that list (as a great mastering tool before the Limiter) you've got literally all you need to do a great audio mix.

Four tools to study isn't so daunting.
Like I said, ask away about audio for film/video in general and I'll give you any advice I can.

The old axiom is true - Half of all great video is audio.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 31, 2012 at 2:31:55 pm

Thank you so much for the advice Jim.

I'm going to copy this post and put it in my learning folder so I will have it for years to come.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 6:32:30 pm

[tony west] "Steve, do you like to use Motion or AE?
"


I am a Motion user but I'm learning AE at the moment.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 6:52:35 pm

[Steve Connor] "I am a Motion user but I'm learning AE at the moment."



When you get down AE I would be interested in your comparisons.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 6:58:36 pm

[tony west] "It seems like people who like Motion are more willing to work with X than people who like AE.
"


I actually love Motion, and think it is an under-rated and wrongly ignored program by many of my colleagues.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 7:26:25 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I actually love Motion, and think it is an under-rated and wrongly ignored program by many of my colleagues.
"


Me too Chris. But you'd hate the way they implemented it in X.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 7:37:21 pm

[Jim Giberti] "[Chris Harlan] "I actually love Motion, and think it is an under-rated and wrongly ignored program by many of my colleagues.
"

Me too Chris. But you'd hate the way they implemented it in X.

"


Yeah, I'm still using v4, though I own a copy of v5. If they ever fix the implementation in X, owning X would be justifiable to me as a gateway to Motion, even if I couldn't use it for anything else.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 7:27:03 pm

IMO, the addition of Logics Effects are cool, but having tracks with the ease of logics automation plus the mixer is what makes mixing in Logic great over FCP Legacy. Also, while Logics effects re great, they dont hold a candle to Waves, so until you can open AU's and use the plgins ofyour choice then im not impressed. I need Waves, and Sonalksis' offering, the eq's and compressors ares so m uch better.

Neil Goodman: Editor of New Media Production - NBC/Universal


Return to posts index

Jari Innanen
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 7:57:54 pm

So this was a Motion topic. My bad.

Apple Certified Associate, FCP X


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 9:59:08 pm

[Neil Goodman] "Also, while Logics effects re great, they dont hold a candle to Waves, "

Well these are the things that are ultimately subjective. I think they more than hold a candle to Waves sonically. I have Waves and Masterworks sets and the Logic stuff sounds as good on average in my studio especially things like the channel EQ and Convolution Verb.

Also to disagree with the basic audio "mixing" premise. I think mixing in FCP7 is pretty primitive compared to what you can do in X, you just have to approach it differently.

As I've said before, I never even considered doing an audio mix in FCP before X. Previously, everything was routed to my audio studio and mixed in DP on a big console. I mix and master just as well but much faster now staying within FCP.

But again, you've got to be willing to rethink the approach, which after years of 24 track machines, mixing consoles and racks of gear, I'm all into.

There needs to be a lot of evolution and hopefully quickly (the ability to add your own plugins being a simple start) but I'm in a different place with audio and film/video since learning this thing.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 8:56:16 pm

[tony west] "It seems like people who like Motion are more willing to work with X than people who like AE... I can see why someone who is not a Motion fan would not feel tied to X and more likely to move to Prp"

I'm a heavy AE user, so here's my perspective from the other side.

Premiere Pro and AE have been interchanging via Dynamic Link for a few versions now, but with FCP7 around, that's never been enough to get me to think about PrP before. I think more AE users are now looking at Premiere because it's been installed on their hard drives for years, the interface is familiar, and CS5's MPE is very powerful.

Adobe's Dynamic Link is cool, but I think that Motion's feature for publishing to FCPX is absolutely brilliant. I hope Adobe sees the potential for something similar with AE/PrP. If FCPX had met my needs better, or if my clients had adopted FCPX themselves, I might have actually started doing more graphics and title work in Motion instead of AE -- specifically for this workflow.

Unfortunately, I think the missing Send to Motion from FCPX feature is a glaring omission that really limits the usefulness of effects work with FCPX, and I hope Apple remedies this soon. (I'd also hope that this would be only one of many interchange features for a future release.)

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: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 9:08:58 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Unfortunately, I think the missing Send to Motion from FCPX feature is a glaring omission that really limits the usefulness of effects work with FCPX, and I hope Apple remedies this soon. (I'd also hope that this would be only one of many interchange features for a future release.)"

I'd also hope that having built Motion 5 so heavily into the FCPX landscape Apple will now start to develop it more seriously than they have in the past and turn it from a very fast and very handy semi-pro tool into one that genuinely competes at the top level.

For example, I'd like to see the introduction of Expressions, as well as extensive channel and colour space manipulation and a bunch of other stuff.

My negative side however keeps telling me that Motion is and will remain a close relative of FCPX in its design philosophy - good enough up to a certain point where it will keep hundreds of thousands of users more than happy but not allowed to develop to the point where it will finally become the grown-up tool that it is perfectly capable of being.

But then again, who knows? I'd love my negative side to be wrong.

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 9:32:12 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I hope Apple remedies this soon"

Me to Walter.

Thanks for the insight


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 11:35:17 pm

Well, I'm a weird one.

I use AE AND I like FCPX. Have never bothered with motion as when I try to do something with it, it crashes. This doesn't account for v5 though as I haven't played with it much. I use Autoduck a lot to get to AE in fcp7, and will use foolcut if FCPX becomes more of a daily driver.

I'm with Walter that the fx publishing/rigging brings a whole new level. I hope the interaction between X and v5 can get refined a bit more.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 30, 2012 at 11:39:38 pm

I should add that there's been some super vague rumors today on the Twitter, about something happening with Apple and editing within the next few days.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 31, 2012 at 2:52:25 am

its dead tho isn't it? Isn't FCP just dead? I tend to overstate this stuff, but a brit channel four editor spoke, in company, in the last week, with deep irritation at how fast the entire industry has abandoned apple. many in the world had deep fondness for the righteousness of FCP as it had intellectually stood.

and then Apple lobotomised it. They didn't refresh it, they didn't make a 1.0 version, they tore out half its brain.
there was always a groundswell status quo waiting to strike FCP down: apple simply handed it to them.
Apple were always morons with regard to the vertical reach requirement of pro software.

FCPX is poorly envisioned software and it died the day it landed.

there are no magical updates: it is mangled stupidity as software and it is clinically dead.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 31, 2012 at 3:33:20 am

Yes, Aindreas, it is not final cut studio. I still think you give too much credit to fcp7 on the whole.

Right now, it's for smaller and not very complex workflows. My workflows aren't super complex (I don't know, everyone's workflow is of relative complexity), but it doesn't work for me quite yet.

That being said, with some stability, I'd start using it on some real projects. I'd deal with the limited interchange, I'd deal with no video out, I'd deal with some of the things that aren't quite deveoped. I'm itching to cut a spot on it.

In all honesty, what I can't deal with is the instability. That has to be fixed from the inside.

For me and my brain, there's some really great concepts in this software. If this software was released on its own without the fcp moniker, my feeling is that people would see it differently. But they didn't, so they don't, so it goes.

It's almost February, how was your month of Avid?


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 31, 2012 at 9:34:25 am

The only thing that's really dying is the type of post industry you represent Aindreas :-)

And repeating your mantra doesn't make it more true.

We know that you are bitterly disappointed byFCPx but I very much challenge your view that FCPx is dead.

The truth is that nobody knows. Adobe Prelude is for me the best example that the 'olld' guard is already trying to play catch up with a game that hasn't even started yet. Skate to where the pug will be....

Anyhow I sincerely hope you'll overcome your trauma one day, because I do not wish anybody the suffering you're going through.

I go and buy some skates now...


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 31, 2012 at 11:51:13 am

not trauma for gods sake - sincere irritation mate. and i think you wanted to say puck there not pug, unless we're all straining to meet this five years hence on the skating rink of life:

http://www.pugcenter.com/images/pug_main.JPG

jokes regarding it being a dogs dinner as software go unsaid, needless to say.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 31, 2012 at 12:49:12 pm

[Mark Morache] "I've suspected that they don't have round tripping because motion has tracks, and FCX doesn't."
Don't say so. Some purist will tell you that Motion has Layers, no tracks.
Although in the end is more or less the same.
Well, no really.
FC tracks are a kind of sophisticated layer where you can put many clips without resourcing to pre-compositing (like in a AE) or grouping (like in Motion).
The FCS4 I was expecting from Apple made Motion and AE useful just for very complex tasks.

[Mark Morache] "To add round-tripping would mean Apple would have to admit that they COULD translate an FCX timeine into a track-based timeline, and we'd all scream "they why can't we open an FCP7 project in FCX?""
Would mean to admit that tracks makes sense and are necessary for any thing other than sticking shots.
Can you imagine a compositing without tracks/layers?
Even node based applications has a time line with a layers interface.
Temporal and spatial vision of all your elements.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Feb 1, 2012 at 1:28:07 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "there are no magical updates"

Oh yes there are!

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

gary adcock
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 31, 2012 at 1:46:49 pm

[Steve Connor] "I'm feeling hopeful that an update will be coming soon, but there again I'm an optimist, as an FCPX user you have to be."

The update landed this am


http://macw.us/A3zc7i

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

http://blogs.creativecow.net/24640



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 31, 2012 at 1:57:32 pm

Lots to talk about here then!!

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 31, 2012 at 2:59:04 pm

[gary adcock] "The update landed this am "

*grin*


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 31, 2012 at 3:01:29 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "gary adcock] "The update landed this am "

*grin*
"


If they have added stability improvements as well, then you might be able to start using it on paying jobs Jeremy?

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Well - it's "early" 2012
on Jan 31, 2012 at 3:20:06 pm

[Steve Connor] "If they have added stability improvements as well, then you might be able to start using it on paying jobs Jeremy?"

I don't want to get my hopes up, but....

Again, I am unofficially, with a doubt, not excited about this at all.

Why should I be? ;)

Jeremy


Return to posts index

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