FORUMS: list search recent posts

Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Lance Bachelder
Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on May 31, 2014 at 12:05:23 am

Cool article and video:

http://www.fastcocreate.com/3030427/how-to-create-a-potent-preview-from-daw...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on May 31, 2014 at 12:21:48 am

7 could work for many years to come if you are vigilant about not updating any, and I mean ANY software. I still use it to access old projects but find it crashes more and more and more the harder it is pushed. For any real work I've moved on to Avid and Premiere CC. And just by way of tweaking the community, FCPX was never a consideration. Editing dialogue in FCPX is like trying to wrestle a bull to the ground by its balls. (They don't like that.)

Tim


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on May 31, 2014 at 12:37:27 am

I'm still onlining projects for people with it. And will be finishing an edit for a PBS doc with it. It still works and still does all the great things it has always done. Shoot with older cameras? Have a MacPro Tower? Kona/BMD/Matrox card? Still does everything that needs doing.

The only reason to upgrade, IMHO, is when you need features that your current software lacks. That is when you move on. That's what made me leap to FCP to begin with. What made me come back to Avid for many projects...and seek out future work on Premiere Pro. I use the tool that completes the task best.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index


TImothy Auld
Re: Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on May 31, 2014 at 12:47:07 am

[Shane Ross] "I use the tool that completes the task best."

And that is the trick, is it not?

Tim


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on May 31, 2014 at 12:57:39 am

Yep.

http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/the-nle-that-wouldnt-die/

http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/the-nle-that-wouldnt-die-ii/

;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Mark Smith
Re: Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on May 31, 2014 at 3:06:21 am

FCP 7 runs on 1 processor and is limited to 2.5 gb of ram, doesn't work well with native camera files, which is why I have moved on to X.


Return to posts index


Mark Raudonis
Re: Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on May 31, 2014 at 1:53:50 pm

Inertia.

The laws of physics also apply to the actions of humans. An NLE in place tends to stay in place!



Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on May 31, 2014 at 2:12:07 pm

Love when people blurb things like X cores or X Gb's out with out backing it up. I just did a UHD-project that rendered FASTER in FCP7 compared to PPCC on a new MacPro. 32-bit vs 64-bit, CPU vs GPU etc. The later isn't always better. There are reasons to move on for sure but newer isn't always better. And FCP7 can use way more than 1 core, but probably not 1 CPU of today's 12-core beasts.


Return to posts index

Mark Smith
Re: Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on May 31, 2014 at 4:27:20 pm

I may have gotten my terms core and processor mixed up but I can tell you on my old mac pro FCP7 never used more than 2.5 gb of ram and only one proc.

I can't speak to PPCC since I don't use it at all. I do know that i regularly do things in FCPX that would cause an outright choke or crash in FCP 7, like a long time lapse sequence with 4k photo .jpg stills, and do it with out breaking a sweat. I don't really care what NLE people use to edit. I'm just saying that FCPX certainly gets the job done faster for me with less sweat. FCP 7, while an oldie but a goodie, feels pretty creaky to me these days.


Return to posts index


Warren Eig
Re: Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on May 31, 2014 at 6:00:26 pm

Um, let's face it. If you are cutting narrative, it is still very viable as you will be interfacing with ProTools, cuts lists for DI etc., (Some feature editors still use Avid MC5). I have always found it easier to have the footage transcoded at the start to ProRes and then edit. Cutting in h.264 makes no sense unless you like high compression in your transitions.

If you are ultimately finishing for TV or cinema, FCP 7 has tracks etc. that makes this easy. Cutting for Youtube or weddings may be a totally different story. Also, that it uses one processor as someone said and 2.5gigs of ram is academic if you are cutting narrative. It's just a tool. I've used a sync block and Steenbecks and KEMS and I'm not that old.

Warren Eig
O 310-470-0905


email: warren@babyboompictures.com
website: http://www.BabyBoomPictures.com


REEL: http://www.babyboompictures.com/BabyBoomPictures/Reels.html


For Camera Accessories - Monitors and Batteries
website: http://www.EigRig.com



Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on May 31, 2014 at 6:53:48 pm

I've been noticing recently that editors on long form content who switch between PP and FCP7 are getting used to what the 64bit NLEs are capable of and therefore not following the FCP7 32bit rules.

I've been helping out on a doc, all footage was transcoded to prores with each day's footage on a timeline. Some timelines are four hours, as would be expected, it's been i/o error 'out of memory' city.

It's like the Louis CK bit about wifi on a plane, once something is possible, it's just expected.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on Jun 1, 2014 at 12:55:55 am
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jun 1, 2014 at 12:56:54 am

[Darren Roark] "once something is possible, it's just expected."

I have that problem when I jump from X to 7. Or Pr. Or MC. Oh, and does the fact that I worked on Apes in FCP X mean that we can have a "Hi-End Pro's Embrace FCP X" headline? ;-) Rumor was Nick was looking at MC. Guess nothing's happened yet...

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on Jun 1, 2014 at 2:51:19 pm

You mean his everything is awesome and everyone is unhappy routine? That would apply here.







Return to posts index

Brian Mulligan
Re: Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on Jun 2, 2014 at 3:01:21 pm

[TImothy Auld] "[Shane Ross] "I use the tool that completes the task best."

And that is the trick, is it not?

Tim"


With all of the GPU acceleration and import/export workflow in modern NLE's - is FCP7 really the best tool?

Brian Mulligan
Senior Editor - Autodesk Smoke
WTHR-TV Indianapolis,IN, USA
Twitter: @bkmeditor


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on Jun 2, 2014 at 4:11:58 pm

It depends on what you do. A year back I tested doing transmission masters in FCP7, FCPX and PP (I presume CS6). FCPX fastest at rendering one sequence out hands down, FCP7 beat PPRO. HOWEVER, FCPX's rendering to SD-resolution was worst of the pack. Further more, FCP7 has batch-exporting. FCPX has a background encoding list but you have to export times per sequence (sequence handling has been boosted in 10.1 but still no batch export). This oddly makes the old-timer with out GPU acceleration and 64-bit the best tool for the job.

In other situations FCPX has blown my mind with its realtime performance. Still haven't felt a super-urge or need to swap from a tool that works just yet. By the time I so, Resolve 11 might be a better solution or my self as we primarily do online / finishing work.


Return to posts index


Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on Jun 2, 2014 at 4:24:46 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Jun 2, 2014 at 4:28:49 pm

[Brian Mulligan] "With all of the GPU acceleration and import/export workflow in modern NLE's - is FCP7 really the best tool?"

Brian,

There are many workflows where import and export hasn't improved (in any NLE) since FCP 7. (eg. projects entirely in ProRes).

As for GPU acceleration, there are many workflows that don't rely so much on this - where the disadvantage in GPU optimization would be outweighed by other advantages of FCP7.

There will always be those who think an editor doesn't know her own needs - for classic examples you can reach back to Mac/PC, Avid/FCP, digital/analog oppositions. If an editor feels X* best meets her needs and the post team is good with that, who's going to argue?

Franz.
[* for unknown values of X]


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on Jun 2, 2014 at 8:17:42 pm

[Brian Mulligan] "With all of the GPU acceleration and import/export workflow in modern NLE's - is FCP7 really the best tool?"

In some cases...yes, it still is the best tool.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Hi-End Pro's still hangin' on to 7...
on Jun 3, 2014 at 3:09:23 am

Although I will say that today I find myself editing with FCP 7, and after 2 years of being on Avid... I hate it. Everything BUT working with stills. That is the one thing that FCP 7 excels over Avid in every possible way. Using stills in Avid is painful....

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

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