Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New FCP  (Read 17162 times)
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #20 on: June 23, 2011, 11:02:11 AM »
ReplyReply

It's worse than I thought.

- No OMF = no export sound in Protools

- No XML = no export in third key applications. No conform in 4K, no grading in Scratch, no Lustre etc...

- NO EDL = no export editing in other NLE and sopftwares like Smoke

- NO AAF ? (some sources say yes, others no)

- NO native RED ONE support = You could only convert the RED clips with the compressor but as you can't export XML
it is useless because you can't use a color correct application that yes reads the Red.

- (apparently) No native XDCAM editing = need to convert to Quicktime with a third application from Sony

- No multicam

- No capture card neither external AJA ...= you can't send a video signal to a pro monitor,
can't capture,  can't HD-Cam... updated: it seems that there is finally a support for AJA

- Each project only allows 1 sequence on timeline = if you have 500 sequences you have 500 projects
you can't open more than 1 project or sequence at once !! this one is really top.

- Some claim they can't change the position of the windows

- the "Color" application that a lot liked very much has been dynamited


Forums are in flame, here in Spain to. Some sources in internet said that the demand for Avid and Premiere classes are incrementing suddenly.

A complete Apple bug, joke or toy, call it the way you want because they obviously knew what they where doing. They are targetting the YouTube market.

I find the attitude of the company arrogant with this total lack of communication because they took everyone by surprise. Million of users, most pro where waiting the upgrade for a long time. They paid the software, cheap, and got a shade of the previous FCP. Apple didn't communicate the truth. They could have warn and say: the version that will be released is not yet to a professional standart and the pro features will be added step by step within an x period of time, or simply. Apple decided to abandonned the pro market...nothing but the facts.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 06:00:59 AM by fredjeang » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2011, 11:44:59 AM »
ReplyReply


But it's a V1.0 program, I think there will be loads of changes and also export options.
There is already talk about adding FCP imports ?
So if there would be FCP exports there will be more options hopefully.


NO, it won't.  Not this program and no this is not Version 1, it's I movie V2.

I could list the two dozen reasons why, but there is no reason because that's already been done.

If it works for you that's ok but that's like saying why bother with photoshop when your camera can make a jpeg?

Why bother with lights when your point and shoot has that little pop up thing?

The only people I know that like this application are the people that like Apple and don't cut video for profit.

And if you haven't worked FCP for years you don't understand what a revelation it was to the industry and I don't live in the past . . . but this is sad.

It's like watching Rolex sell a Casio watch with gold spray paint.  Casio doesn't have an upgrade path.

The good thing is nobody dies, the world won't stop, it will only cost a few grand to move over to something better, though there is a few weeks of training and a different learning curve.

That's the one thing most of us don't have is that extra two weeks.

FYI: the reason people will move is we lose so much time in rendering.  I pulled to 5:30am this morning and probably 2 hours of that is rendering.  In fact I had placed an appointment to price out a new PC boxed system with AVID when FCP was announced  . . . so I thought might as well tough it out for a few more months and see what shakes loose from the Apple tree.

Now I know the only thing that fell to the ground was an imitation piece of candy.

The first time Ipad owners will love it.  The people that kept Apple in business for years are pissed.

IMO

BC
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1523


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 23, 2011, 12:14:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Again, please read it as I posted it.
I agree with all of you.
But I tried to also show some positive in it, in MY situation and I can't be alone it's a program that IF Multicam is added is perfect.
And with me many others probably.

But AGAIN, I 100% agree upon the let down for pro's without one doubt.
So please don't take my post as a defence, I think Apple screwed up big time with the naming and the set expectations.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #23 on: June 23, 2011, 04:35:14 PM »
ReplyReply

You know, I came recently in video, and never liked the FCP basically for the constant render. From the beginning I decided to just ignore it and learn on other systems. So I have no special relation with the software. Despite of that, I feel sad. I'm not indifferent, It does not make me laugh at all.
This software managed to impose itself deaply in the industry upon the arrogant and expensive Avid of the time. From there the Avid guys had to listen to the pros, rebuilding politics from scratch and dropped prices down. If I can enjoy such a well designed software like MC5 is in part because of FCP forced the competition to do better and cheapper. It's ironic, what revolutionated the editing task and show the way to go is now just a shade of itself. History has often a wired sense of dark humour.

So it's all an icon that suddenly has been sacrificed on the altar of the cool factor.

I received a few emails from scandalised friends that are literraly boiling and even want to completly swich windows just to punish Apple. Stupid thing really.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 04:36:51 PM by fredjeang » Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #24 on: June 23, 2011, 06:04:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I'll tell you the god's honest truth, most of complainers for just about anything in this world more often than not are not the power users, they are the casual users and just need something to bitch about.
hmhhh... the "casual users" maybe complain about the interface or about some missing editing features (or effects) or so. And they praise the magnetic timeline. But users missing EDL support, interchangeablity of projects, true video output etc. certainly complain about the lack of those features beause they need it. And typically you only need those features in more or less professional workflows.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 06:06:32 PM by tho_mas » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #25 on: June 23, 2011, 06:44:04 PM »
ReplyReply

There's nothing wrong with using FCP X.  If your a lite user and want a quick learning curve it's perfect, or like John if you want to use it for fast dailies.

It's perfect for those clients that say,  just cut together the background footage of you guys working, or that interview thing the CMO gave during the shoot.

I'm even sure talented editors could make it sing, but talented editors ain't gonna touch it unless Apple writes them a check and most people I know aren't in the equipment selling, demonstrating, or endorising business, they're in the equipment using business.

It's fine, life goes on.

The thing is I never cared about "lite" systems.

I'll admit I went to the first FCP cause back then I couldn't afford 300 thousand large for AVID and a hundred grand for media 100 was insane.

When I started with FCP everyone I knew in the Hollywood biz laughed and thought it was like premiere and it wasn't, the only problem was it wasn't very stable.

Now FCP owns . . . excuse me . . . did own the editing world.

The thing for me is I never really cared about exploring lite systems because I felt any time lost learning how to use something like Imovie I could spend exploring a more advanced system that could really do some good for my business and I have to admit FCP has been very, very good to me.

But I'm not pissed, I'm just not buying, but it won't cost Steve Jobs a penny cause obviously he doesn't care what I use . . . nor should he.  

There is a NY times article where some guy address all the problems with X with positive answers, though he left off about 10 very obvious functions we need.   Once again That's ok, Apple probably bought him lunch.

Anyway sorry for the sarcasm.

The thing is Apple didn't invent FCP, Macromedia did, they didn't invent color and Apple didn't invent the I-tune/I-pod, portalplayer did, so like Aperture this is kind of what happens when Apple invents a professional system.

What apple is great at is easy usability, marketing and slick packaging, so given that FCPX will make them money.  

Just not my money.

IMO

BC


P.S.  Last night I worked on a style edit until 5:30am to get a large project green lighted to begin shooting.  It worked and the project is on.  Now out of those hours I worked, about 2 to 3 are in rendering.  That's a deal killer and X sounds great except with this edit, I could not do it in X . . . period or if I did I would have spent more time than the rendering . . . so what's the point?

P.S. 2

I was at the apple store today buying an arm load of drives and I thought well since I'm here I could buy another FCP 7.  I asked the salesperson who was the store manager and she said, "not another one"  No we don't have it, Apple made us send them all back last week."

« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 07:04:47 PM by bcooter » Logged
pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #26 on: June 23, 2011, 08:37:22 PM »
ReplyReply

i have been waiting for fcpX....
first of all apple stated right from the start that this was not an upgrade....that it was completely reworked from the ground up....i have 3 little projects that i knew i did not want to start in fcp 7 (all 3 are not time sensitive and not commercial of course)...

fcp7 works today as well as it did yesterday...

only a tiny fraction of all film/video being shot needs fcp7 but most could really use more then imovie (i own both and always disliked imovie just like i dislike iphoto...)

$300...this will open up the market more then imovie and fcp ever did....

no plug ins, although there are some announced daily...but i this will have to be reworked as well...all these companies who have been selling plug ins at movie/hollywood prices will have to adjust.....sidenote here: nik/oneone software sell all their stuff for 100 and up....snapseed (nik software) is $5 in the app store and is the most amazing thing i have ever seen...this is where things are heading...

i really wish adobe would have reworked ps at some point...even if that would have meant that i would have to run some older version just to be able to go back....one look at pixelmator and this becomes so obvious...and yes, unfortunately i can't use pixelmator because of lack of features and yes i use cs5 daily but it does not make me hate it less....

apple is a consumer company....they make truly amazing consumer products....that is what they are great at....but hey....fcp is pretty great as well (although it ranks with cs5 in my book...) i use and love aperture (for several reasons, among them the great system integration and yes...the hope of a better future....)

this is a v1 and there are several people promising (hoping for?) upgrades before the end of summer....

who will jump on lion once it hits? or will it be wiser to wait a month, or 2 or 6 for adobe and canon and epson to join the fun and let us use our gear with lion...

next year we will have a 30" imac with "lightning bolt connection?" for external raids, external monitors and capture rendering any res you want in the blink of an eye and fcpX2 all for under $5000 (including raid and external monitor and software) mixing your color and controlling your software on the ipad3.....and i am sure it will not have everything and i am sure there will be issues but all in all it will take things to a new level...just like fcp7 did...

the only problem is that you will have to go back to fcp7 to re-work that older project and it will feel like a time warp....

bcooter: the apple store is not for professionals...they don't have any drives that are worth considering doing video with/on...it's a candystore....
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #27 on: June 23, 2011, 10:48:21 PM »
ReplyReply



bcooter: the apple store is not for professionals...they don't have any drives that are worth considering doing video with/on...it's a candystore....

Your kind of right, though John is right I bought a bunch of one terabyte lacie Ruggeds.

I've got a billion of them and only one has failed someone stepped on.

They're a good price, easy to use and with that Nitro AV FW800 Bus you can hook 7 up to them.

Anyway.

IMO

BC
Logged
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 24, 2011, 01:04:08 AM »
ReplyReply

It's interesting!  I've probably learned more about NLE workflows, based on the feedback in the last few days, than I have in several months.

FCPX brings to mind my and many other developers reaction when Microsoft replaced Visual C++ ad Visual Basic with Visual Studio .NET.  Talk about  paradigm shift.....    My backround is database development, I started with Ashton Tate's dBase and quickly settled on Sybase' SQL Server.  Both companies ran roughshod over their developers.... shouting bug reports down.  Then Microsoft releases Visual Basic 1.0..... whoah...  a company that actually cared (at the time) about developers!  The "Visual" moniker continued through many iterations and finally settled on a creaky 16/32bit COM (component object model) based development environment that frequently caused more problems than it solved  - anyone Windows users remember DLL Hell?

When MS released Visual Studio .NET and it's managed code, runtime environment, strict class based model - a *lot* of experienced developers - including me, were to put it mildly - pissed.  One very influential figure in database development, Bill Vaughn went so far as to call VB.Net, VB.NOT!  Needless to say -any existing code was pretty much out the window......

So fast fwd a few years - yeah it was painfull, yeah i still have to maintain a couple of old COM based applications - but *everything* else went from 32bit to 64 with a simple rebuild.  New technologies that have come down, have been possible to integrate and add to my existing work - the .NET framework is that robust and extensible - no end in sight....

So, I read about FCPX and discover that several people that have been in the loop relatively early are pretty positive, while at the same time, pragmatic about its *current* limitations.   I see a lot of very talented editors as upset as I was faced with the changes ahead.  The one thing that bothers me is the mis-information that is being propagated, along with the snarkiness - I really don't care if Apple bought anyone lunch, or whatever..... 

I *get* the implications and for me FCPX looks to be compelling.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #29 on: June 24, 2011, 01:29:05 AM »
ReplyReply

So, I read about FCPX and discover that several people that have been in the loop relatively early are pretty positive, while at the same time, pragmatic about its *current* limitations.   I see a lot of very talented editors as upset as I was faced with the changes ahead.  The one thing that bothers me is the mis-information that is being propagated, along with the snarkiness - I really don't care if Apple bought anyone lunch, or whatever.....  

I *get* the implications and for me FCPX looks to be compelling.

It's simple John: because both are right in what they are saying.

FCP X will be good for a certain kind of users. It will be completly, I insist completly, useless for other kind of users.

It's not that it's a complete rewrite that just forces people to think different, it is that it simply does NOT allow important and basic tasks power users and pros need to deal with daily. It is simply impossible. Thus, if the software in a closed circuit will be good, it's completly useless for other users. It's not that it is useless, it's that it is completly out of question in its current release. Not a question of mood, of resistance, just the fact. If your needs are light that's perfectly fine but there are people wich needs simply can not be covered by this software. It's not a question of adaptation, it's a question that this software has been built for another target-market but was supposed to be the next step of a professional-high-end editor, and that, it is not. That's why Cooter said for ex it's Imovie 2. Again, if you work in closed circuit for your own indy prod you may find it compelling.

And you don't need to be Hollywood or Coot to find very fast its limitations. When I read first the specs I went blue. What is lacking is really important. I use those things daily and without them I simply could not work properly with others and would get too limited and I'm just at the beginning of my video training. I'm using Avid on Windows so you can object that I'm not concerned, but it is time to upgrade my equipment and I've been considering a re-moved to Apple. It is clear that with this politic my choice has been completly closed. Maybe things could be rewritte, added later, whatever, but it will not drastically change from this. It seems obvious that Apple just targetted other users and probably did it for strategical reasons but they will disappear from the industry and actually they may want to because this is not a mistake but a deliberate choice. So it's understandable if you find over-reactions and angryness on the web.

But as JR said, life goes on, it's nothing that important.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 03:50:13 AM by fredjeang » Logged
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 24, 2011, 01:41:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Good points!

I'm *not* constrained by tape or older technologies, so I want to tell a story.....  How would FCPX hold me back?

(I'm a Windows guy!!!!  I can't believe I'm taking this point of view....)

« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 01:44:52 AM by John.Murray » Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #31 on: June 24, 2011, 01:47:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Good points!

I'm *not* constrained by tape or older technologies, so I want to tell a story.....  How would FCPX hold me back?


It depends. A story can be told and involved many persons on the chain. If you are telling the story on your own prod and don't have raw camera, FCP X will do the job perfectly fine...like any other editor by the way, even a freeware.

If in your prod other departments are involved, you will not be able to communicate between softwares. You are in a closed application. And that's just the type of the iceberg.

So, it depends.

Just a quick note: as training for me is key because I need it, I'm following regularly the training centers and editors who actually give classes in all systems in Spain. What I can tell you is that the tendency is that they will keep going the training in FCP 7 and I read already anouncements that they will not provide a training in FCP X because as it is, it would be useless for a person to pay a training that is not usable in the working market. Those aren't decision people take just because they like barking. Most of those guys actually liked and used FCP and get their incomes with it. If they take those kind of decisions it is because of a serious reason.

In the end Apple will release a plug-in for better color correect for 100 bucks, will fix this and that, probably will provide XML and EDL, Automatic Duck will provide some of the lacking features for 200 bucks etc...and you'll have a 800 software made of parts like a Lego.
Yeah, it might be that way in the future and in the end, well, the software will work. But how uncertain.

I'm asking myself if Apple has become a phone company. IMO.  



Pschefz: Actually you may be right, This next level would be that the cool factor company wants everybody to turn arround their tablets and phones, cloud and web. Maybe they understand that the real market will be the web stuff. RedOne? Come on! who needs Red anymore if all is going to be on the web. Who needs a dedicated grading software when viewing on phones? etc...They maybe right. They may anticipate a cultural and technological reality in wich the current industry is regarded as completly heavy and obsolete and they are putting the next level on their gadgets culture and building softwares that will work brillantly for i.phoners. And the irony, is that they may be right somewhere... a new revolution is in the air?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 05:49:08 AM by fredjeang » Logged
PierreVandevenne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 24, 2011, 06:20:28 AM »
ReplyReply

And the irony, is that they may be right somewhere... a new revolution is in the air?

My feeling as well on the global trend. They have a very good track record of anticipating and now shaping consumer's sentiments. A lot of the things they do on the software side are, to stay polite, dumbed down. But when you see the attendance of their software Te Deum applaud at the "revolutionary" concept of full screen apps, on is left wondering....
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #33 on: June 24, 2011, 10:07:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Anyone posted this yet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRzLP0FJ82I&feature=player_embedded
Logged

bcooter
Guest
« Reply #34 on: June 24, 2011, 10:30:29 AM »
ReplyReply

My feeling as well on the global trend. They have a very good track record of anticipating and now shaping consumer's sentiments. A lot of the things they do on the software side are, to stay polite, dumbed down. But when you see the attendance of their software Te Deum applaud at the "revolutionary" concept of full screen apps, on is left wondering....

I'm not to sold on the one program fits all system that Apple is selling.  Producing, shooting and editing even acceptable motion imagery is a daunting task and a very collaborative effort.

Apple would love a one camera, one macbook editing station, one Ipad viewing world, but for professional production, that's a long ways off.  I give them credit for trying though right now the only person applauding is Apple and that's kind of one hand clapping.

I have no doubt in my mind that all traditional television could just be streamed over the web and played in your home and office on any device wirelessly,  at any time you wish.

But I also have a lot of doubt that will happen tomorrow, because there are too many business interests in keeping things as close to the way they are to just open the floodgates and let everything stream like netflix.

I produce content and it's really none of my business how it's played, unless the medium has restraints or requirements that change what I deliver.

What I do know is Apple did what is good for them and a lot of their market, but overall this will take them away from the professional editing side of the business.  

I'm sure that's their plan  because there are a lot more people shooting videos of their vacation in Orlando, or corporate meetings in Chicago that clog u tube,  than there are real paying projects, but it is somewhat of a mute point because FCP EX is buggy and doesn't really work anyway.

They'll make it better but by then most of their real money making users will have to go to something else.  

Apple knows this or they wouldn't have taken FCP 7 off the shelves and off their website if they knew that FCP EX was really ready for heavy lifting.

After giving this some thought, I'm really glad Apple did what they did.

FCP was always somewhat of a hard sell in the professional world and Apple let is languish for 5 years (actually a lot longer than that), so that really wasn't their prime motivator anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRzLP0FJ82I

For years I've wanted to move to AVID.  Today more than ever, it's the gold standard and the only thing that kept me back was I work a lot of hours and didn't want to take the time to relearn anything.

Now I have the incentive to move on.

If Apple's way is better, I'll move back, but this time I kind of doubt it.

We're living in the real world now, where a new system has to be upgradeable and adaptive because everything changes quickly.

Apple may have their logo on everything they sell but as I mentioned before, most of it they didn't invent, so if they're going completely in house, they need to get a little better.


IMO

BC
Logged
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 24, 2011, 10:37:28 AM »
ReplyReply

It depends. A story can be told and involved many persons on the chain. If you are telling the story on your own prod and don't have raw camera, FCP X will do the job perfectly fine...like any other editor by the way, even a freeware.

If in your prod other departments are involved, you will not be able to communicate between softwares. You are in a closed application. And that's just the type of the iceberg.

So, it depends.

Closed?  Not at all - if you mean "closed" in the sense there are few add-ins available - then yes you would be right.  Raw support?  In the works. OMF/AAF?  Currently Automatic Duck.  EDL?  Phil Hodgetts has stated in writing he's planning on supporting that.

I get your points - but consider this:  Everything you object to is based on *current* workflows; FCPX is defining a new one, based on metadata.  Read this http://www.philiphodgetts.com/books/conquering-metadata-fcpx/ .  I'm not invested in any workflow at this point and am free to choose based on performance and an embracing of current technologies which don't include tape.  If a future collaboration requires OMF of EDL support, FCPX will support it.  Right now, I don't need it.

Finally, the snark about iPhones reveals your mis-understanding of the underlying technolgy FCPX uses.  FCP was based on Quicktime (forever stuck at 32bit).  FCPX uses Qt-X which just happened to be first implemnted in IOS - from what I understand, it's capable of native 4K realtime rendering.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 10:40:08 AM by John.Murray » Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #36 on: June 24, 2011, 11:05:23 AM »
ReplyReply

John, I'm not against democratization of video neither any improvement that can boost the workflow.

But I'm not an engineer. I don't care if the program is metadatas dased or if it has been written in coca cola or fanta lemon language.

The only things I care is if I can send the sound to Protools? No. And we need it.
if I can communicate with a Smoke or Nuke platform? No. Why not after all, those units are sooo obsolete.
If I can send the editing to Scratch? to Resolve? No because I need XML, that means more rendering, more time lost, more manipulation.
If I can use more than one timeline per project? no. More than one timeline are so 90's...
More than one sequence? no, no I can't. Why should we need it?
Why should I need to distribute my windowns the way I want? Because Apple knows the good way to work for me.
If I can read the EDL of another guy that has done the job in Avid, Premiere or Edius? No, I'll have to explain to them: look, your softwares are completly crap, this precious thing uses metadatas man! Metadatas! can't you see it? This is the future.
If I can send my choices to other editors and work on team under different systems as it is often the case? No
If I can read Red on the timeline right now because we have Red workflow right now, like 100% of the people in this business? no, why should I edit Red ? So crap!
Photoshop layers? noooo
Oh well, alpha layers? Nope, What the hell am I going to do anyway with those useless stuff?
And tell me, what's the point of the 4K realtime with this? what are you going to fill in it? Iphone cam footage?


Sorry for being sarcastic John. If it works for you that's perfect, and it might work for many people and maybe the program is really good and we don't understand it. but understand also that it does not work for others. Maybe we are obsolete, I don't deny it, but it just doesn't work for us.

maybe those softwares I named and the workflow in question are obsolete and Apple only knows the right technology and the divine revolution and will put all the industry to stone age. Maybe.
But to date, if it does not work properlly with those it is completly useless for me and for the vast majority of the people I've been talking to and read those days. And again, no need to be at the stratosphere of the business to just missing too much key features.

Maybe you're right John, maybe this approach is a revolution. But for me, today, Apple lost me completly.

Ps: in the Avid website, there is currently an offer for "only Final Cut users" to 995 USD or 789 . I wonder if that was there before.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 11:57:07 AM by fredjeang » Logged
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 24, 2011, 11:56:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Fred - I suspect we're more in agreement than not - and I totally get your concerns.  The reason I brought up my experience with the .NET framework when *it* was at version 1.0, was I felt exactly the same!!!!  Fast forward a couple of years and I'm a more productive developer than I ever have been.....

You mention the lack of support *today* for existing standards, fair enough - but you refuse to acknowledge that these are being addressed.....  why?

The iphone crack is tiresome, I mention 4k native rendering because it has the power to support Red Raw as soon as support is added for it, sorry if I was unclear on that.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #38 on: June 24, 2011, 12:05:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred - I suspect we're more in agreement than not - and I totally get your concerns.  The reason I brought up my experience with the .NET framework when *it* was at version 1.0, was I felt exactly the same!!!!  Fast forward a couple of years and I'm a more productive developer than I ever have been.....

You mention the lack of support *today* for existing standards, fair enough - but you refuse to acknowledge that these are being addressed.....  why?

The iphone crack is tiresome, I mention 4k native rendering because it has the power to support Red Raw as soon as support is added for it, sorry if I was unclear on that.

But it's very uncertain John. Apple has always surrownd itself with a secret service secrecy that would put to shame the KGB. Nobody knows the route. If the compagny would comunicate clearly to their buyers their plans many people would be ready to wait and give it a chance. But the problem is that it is very risky. Who's pro wants to risk if there is no official communication that we know with a clear route. Apple could solve this with just one official anouncement but I think they won't deliberately.
Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1911



« Reply #39 on: June 24, 2011, 12:17:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for reminding us of Philip Hodgetts. His is possibly the most clued-in voice out there talking about Final Cut X.
Here is a link to his recent MFAQ about FCP X
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad