Apple to unveil new version of Final Cut Studio on 12th April 2011

57 replies [Last post]
PaulD
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2002

Hi
The Final Cut Pro User Group Network is excited to have a very special guest presentation at the 10th Annual Las Vegas FCPUG SuperMeet.
http://www.supermeet.com/

It seems that Apple is taking over the whole of the presentation schedule.
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/shullfish/story/are_you_ready_for_fcp_x/

HallmarkProductions
Offline
Joined: Aug 29 1999

Now there will be all the usual speculation about what will be included. I will start the ball rolling - fully 64-bit compliant, and some nice new page peel effects (joking on that, of course!)

Chris

Chris
Time for a new signature now...

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007

From what I heard it will allow you to finally use all those cores and ram that are sitting in your mac pro, oh and I need a 3D page peel effect as the 80's are the thing this decade! :D

HallmarkProductions
Offline
Joined: Aug 29 1999

Gary...maybe we can start a movement to "bring back page peels and cube spins?" :)

Chris
Time for a new signature now...

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007
HallmarkProductions wrote:
Gary...maybe we can start a movement to "bring back page peels and cube spins?" :)

And then squeeze the cube into the corner and explode the bastard! Well that's what Geoff Wonfor the director on The Tube used to say!:D

dominicwitherow
Offline
Joined: Apr 2 2006

I only ever use the 'Jaws' transition effect for all my clients. Anything else looks so amateur ... :eek: :D

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

I love the 'draw back the curtains' just slightly more than the 'expanding star of David', use them all the time :)

I joke, but I still see wedding films with these lovingly included. As well as big brazen titles that announce in flowery, curly script, 'The Reception'.

Sigh.

HallmarkProductions
Offline
Joined: Aug 29 1999
tom hardwick wrote:
As well as big brazen titles that announce in flowery, curly script, 'The Reception'.

Sigh.

I thought they all had that? :) (please, I AM joking!)

Chris
Time for a new signature now...

Maxwell
Offline
Joined: Jan 13 2007

One thing i would like to know is>>>>How much is the new version going to cost.
I always feel these new update or versions are for the professional end of the market. As i dont believe for one minute that the semi or pure amateur needs a newer version.
Mind you i think Apple have done more for the iMovie regards upgrade then FCP. So the call has been heard for Apple to move things with FCP.
All i hope they deliver the requests being asked for?????????????

PaulD
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2002
Maxwell wrote:
So the call has been heard for Apple to move things with FCP.
All i hope they deliver the requests being asked for?

Hi
I doubt if Apple have listened overmuch - people who have seen a preview of the new software (and can't talk about it} describe the experience with oblique quotes:
Henry Ford:
"If I’d asked people what they wanted, they would have asked for a better horse"
Wayne Gretzky (ice hockey champion):
"A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player skates to where the puck is going to be."

Lusky
Offline
Joined: May 8 2006

there is a lot of talk of Apple getting rid of the Viewer and letting you scrub footage the same way you do in iMovie, but god knows.

I expect 64bit the ability to take any of the new codecs and a lot lot less rendering

I hope for an improvement in Bluray- but don't hold my breath.

I still use FCS2 as I didn't think the last upgrade wasn't enough for me to splash the cash only 6 months after buying my Mac Pro and FCS

John Paul

Maxwell
Offline
Joined: Jan 13 2007

Not long to wait for news for those who did not go to NAB. Report should hit our shores soon.

Lusky
Offline
Joined: May 8 2006

Final Cut Pro X then, some very impressive changes,

no transcoding yay
automatic colour corection to match two cameras
adjust just part of an image (does this mean an ability to fix high contast shots?)
annalysis footage on the way in and fixes audio hum etc automatically and auto image stabalises as it is ingesting.
begin editing while it is still ingesting, don't need to wait for final cut to finish getting your footage.
64 bit
no more rendering (hallelujah)
looks like the viewer is gone and you preview your footage like iMovie
No more key frames in audio at least (just like iMovie) looks cool

This is just the tip, can't wait to start seeing more detailed breakdown now it's out there. very impressed so far wonder how much of an adjustment you need to make to your workflow

No announcements on the rest of theFCS suite yet but $299 for FCP from the App store no UK Price (June) , I wonder if it will be a different price for upgrade.

Anyway count me excited

update on pricing

"Lastly perhaps, we've had a couple of different flavors. We've had upgrade pricing, we've had Final Cut Express, we've had Final Cut Studio. So we decided we really wanted to do away with that. We wanted to greatly simplify the pricing structure and make it very easy for you if you decided that you wanted to get a copy of Final Cut Pro. So we've decided to make it available for the amazing price of $299."

so looks like no upgarde price, but $299 should be what? £250 the other FCS apps will be snnounced soon but I have read that FCP has absorbed color and soundtrack

John Paul

foxvideo
foxvideo's picture
Offline
Joined: Sep 9 1999

Interesting sales /pricing strategy - download via AppStore per machine only - that'll kill off the pirates.

Dave Farrants Fox Video Editing

HallmarkProductions
Offline
Joined: Aug 29 1999

The background rendering is a real bonus (we had that 15 years ago with Liquid) , as is "start now. don't wait". $299 download should really be more like £200 plus VAT, but, I bet it creeps a fair bit higher. It is a shame if there is no upgrade discount anymore, even if it was just for early adopters. That said, $299 is an amazing price compared to the competition - as long as you have a MacPro of course! :)

We have 6 licences, so, I can see that it is going to be expensive overall!

Chris
Time for a new signature now...

stuart621
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2001

Well that all looks very impressive. I saw some info on American sites and it's interesting to see some insightful commenrs like "Ew - gray" (sic) and people moaning just because it's different but from what I can see, the new interface looks great.

Pretty amazing price too.

PaulD
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2002
foxvideo
foxvideo's picture
Offline
Joined: Sep 9 1999

Larry Jordan just posted a good informative piece on FCP X on his BLOG

Dave Farrants Fox Video Editing

Neon Films
Offline
Joined: Aug 23 2000

Mmm, I've yet to read more about it features wise but I think that if Apple aren't doing an upgrade option that's pretty poor - especially if we need to purchase it for each system we use. We use a MacPro and MacBook and currently use the same Final Cut Studio software on both systems as I understand that is allowed in their licence terms. We've previously fallen foul of Apple's poor customer support having bought FCS2 and then FSC3 coming out 10 days later and still having to pay for the upgrade.

The other thing that concerns me is the removal of the viewer - although I'm open minded about it until having used it.

Mark Smith

Leeds Media Services
Video Production in Leeds and Yorkshire

PaulD
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2002

Hi
Here's one editor's assessment:

Features that sound perfect for me:
- 64 bit
- Unlimited menory
- Uses Open CLI and Grand Central Dispatch
- Color fully managed with ColorSync
- Resolution independent playback system up to 4K
- Mix & match all content in timeline without transcoding
- No rendering, it does it in the background using every available CPU cycle
- Can plug into cameras and edit whilst ingesting
- Non destructive color balance on ingest
- Stabilisation on ingest
- Audio cleanup on ingest
- People and shot detection
- Range based keywording - metadata attached to part of a clip
- Smart collections - like smart folders
- Clip connections, primary and secondary media locking together
- Magnetic timeline -moves audio out of the way to avoid collisions.
- Single keystroke nesting
- Compound clips - collapse clips into a single clip
- Inline precision editor - simplifies trimming of clips
- Auditioning - sampling of different versions of edits
- 'Skimming' media previews when you move the cursor over
- Timeline Index- an index of all the clips in the timeline
- Automatic control of number of tracks - add and go when needed
- Sync clips with Plural Eyes style featue (Not Plural Eyes)
- Pitch corrected audio skimming
- Waveforms show levels in realtime
- Retiming in the timeline
- One click to match color between clips
- New advanced color correction
- Improved keyframing, bezier paths and curve display in the timeline
- Color & Soundtrack now in FCPX

Features that make me.. worry:
- iMovie like filmstrip view
- Color & Soundtrack now in FCPX
- Automatic control of number of tracks - add and go when needed
- Smart collections - like smart folders.
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/8/1128601

A further report of the 'sneak-preview', answering the wider FCSuite question:

I spoke with Richard Townhill, Director of Pro Video Product Marketing for Apple (who served as the host for Apple’s presentation) who told me that “the purpose of today is to focus exclusively on Final Cut Pro, highlight some of the new features, and give people a chance to see and comment on the new interface. We will have much more to say about both Final Cut and our other applications in the future.”
http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/wordpress/archives/1452

Lusky
Offline
Joined: May 8 2006
Neon Films wrote:
Mmm, I've yet to read more about it features wise but I think that if Apple aren't doing an upgrade option that's pretty poor - especially if we need to purchase it for each system we use. We use a MacPro and MacBook and currently use the same Final Cut Studio software on both systems as I understand that is allowed in their licence terms. We've previously fallen foul of Apple's poor customer support having bought FCS2 and then FSC3 coming out 10 days later and still having to pay for the upgrade.

The other thing that concerns me is the removal of the viewer - although I'm open minded about it until having used it.

The standard app store policy is apps purchased can be installed onto 5 systems that you authorise. I don't know where the rumour has comw from about only using it on one. although I stand to be corrected

John Paul

Lusky
Offline
Joined: May 8 2006
PaulD wrote:

Features that make me.. worry:

- Color & Soundtrack now in FCPX

I think this is a good move considering how iffy it can be transferring between the programs

John Paul

PaulD
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2002

Hi
Agreed. One of the biggest unanswered questions is *if* a new FC Studio is part of the new scheme of things *how much* of the new core code is integrated, doing away with 'round-tripping', and replacing it with a single 'timeline' in a suite of different interfaces to do different tasks - editing, compositing/graphics, colour grading, audio sweetening etc etc...

Medidox
Offline
Joined: Jun 20 2005

The iMovie style filmstrip view looks like one of those paradigm shifts that occur with software. It looks hideous to me because it doesn't seem to offer the necessary concentration on one specific item that the old viewer window did.

In fact the whole interface while doing away with the present battleship grey look now manages to look garish and lack the flair of apple's other software. But if it works then I'll forgive most software for shortcomings in the looks department, however it may be cheap at $299 but I've a feeling you'll need something pretty special on the hardware side to make full use of all those background rendering tasks.

PaulD
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2002
Medidox wrote:
...I've a feeling you'll need something pretty special on the hardware side to make full use of all those background rendering tasks.

Hi
If an iPhone 4's CPU can handle h.264 in iMovie effortlessly, I would guess that any Mac Pro since 2008, and any i3/i5/i7 iMac or MacBook Pro should be perfectly capable of handling FCP X's newly written/optimised code.

Of course Thunderbolt disk connectivity will simplify things for high-end users, so a new Mac will perform better. ;)

Here's the audio/slides of the presentation in full:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VLwsfBa71U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfgnyRSRyzg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OI3RGdhrM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16Hb4_3oOY

And another better framed version but shortened a bit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-77beFICSlI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAXL7L9fToQ

Maxwell
Offline
Joined: Jan 13 2007

I just watched the new version on FCPX. I detect a certain iMovie elements and the cost is a surprise to me.
Not fully understanding all they talked about, what i would like to know from other members who use this software and seen the video. Is it value for money? and have they gone the extra mile to improve the whole structure?.

HallmarkProductions
Offline
Joined: Aug 29 1999
Maxwell wrote:
I just watched the new version on FCPX. I detect a certain iMovie elements and the cost is a surprise to me.
Not fully understanding all they talked about, what i would like to know from other members who use this software and seen the video. Is it value for money? and have they gone the extra mile to improve the whole structure?.

Is it value for money? Well, assuming it is relatively bug-free, it will undoubtedly be worth it for anyone who edits using FCP and who has a suitable multi-core Mac. The background rendering, and the integration of the apps, plus the ability to use all machine cores will save loads of time. Also, the ability to start editing whilst still ingesting is a good progression. I only watched about 10 mins of the video though - found all that American cheering really tiresome. I think I will wait for a detailed review.

Chris
Time for a new signature now...

Medidox
Offline
Joined: Jun 20 2005

I think Chris has hit the nail on the head there. This is the complete rewrite of the software that has been inevitable since the move to Intel.

It will be value for money once the early adopters have ironed out the inevitable bugs. I'd hang fire until late summer on this one to see which way it goes in the real world.

Duncan Craig
Offline
Joined: Nov 19 2008

You really need to watch the whole video. Part two is a demo by another chap, you see the speed of the interface. Less whooping.

The magnetic timeline and the updating audio waveforms showing clipping in different colours are totally brilliant features. The media display dragging over the thumbnails actually looks like we used to have on Editbox in the 90's, but much prettier. It looked like you can set the thumbnails at 10 sec intervals, then view the entire rushes, or a whole 'bin'
in one long run of thumbnails, but you can drag over them and see the video within it. Very Quantel-esque.

The colour corrector looks great, loads more control, primary and secondaries, moving mattes. I can normally make do with layering and the 3-way in FCP, but this puts Color (sic) directly in FCPX. The colour match demo he did was hilarious though the crowd when wild, is was however a very good correction, and the implementation of it was lovely. You select colour match from a pull down a viewer pops up. Then you simply click on the timeline and the corrections updates, hit return and it's done.

It'll take a while to get used to not having any tracks to deal with, but the way the timeline just gets on with it, and nothing disturbs anything else is fantastic.

Deciding if the 'auto' features work to your personal satisfaction. Having a smart folder type setup with all the closeup auto detected is interesting, trusting the software has analysed the footage properly and not missed a shot is what would need testing for me. Autosyncing multiple angle via audio waveforms is good news, there are plugins for FCP already but having the App do it has got to be better.

Also, DVE's (motion moves) now seem to have all the keyframing abilities/beziers etc of Motion, which is the main reason I ever have to use motion - smooth controllable in and outs.

What they didn't demo was any keying, ingest or export, media management or fully explain the scalability. Also third party plugins might need a total rewrite, who knows.

All in all as an FCP user since the early days, it really looked very nice indeed. It's just a shame it's so cheap. Just another excuse for clients to buy their own setup and have a bash themselves. Still it been going that way for a while.

Duncan.

PaulD
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2002

Hi
I agree with your assessment of the power of what they demonstrated. :)
Here's another link to the video:
http://www.vimeo.com/22329493
http://www.vimeo.com/22341718

In addition it is hugely powerful for the timeline 'clips' to be a context-sensitive representation of either the clip media, or sync-lock between various a/v clips, or a 'nest' of multiple clips locked together.

Also with unlimited clip metadata options represented in icon-form in the top left corner Event Library, all clips that would have been laid out on a single track in the timeline - all the b-roll video, or all the VO/sync FX/Music audio - can be grouped together as an icon that would allow parameters to be changed en masse.

I think its cheap because it will be quite a while before a new FCP X studio suite is ready, so this is an interim pricing to get people to use the new version before everything else we need it ready.

Its like QT X has been available since Snow Leopard arrived, but Final Cut still requires QT 7...

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

I think that this is a paradigm shift. Also think it reflects what the powers that be in TV want.
It's something that has been brewing in some peoples minds, mine included, for at least 20 years.
The first iteration will probably be compromised to say the least, but I think I can see where this leads. There will be ranting, wringing of hands and rending of garments. But, ultimately, storytelling will benefit.
Talent will out, as usual, but a lot of people will eventually be out of a job as a result of this.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

HallmarkProductions
Offline
Joined: Aug 29 1999
Rob James wrote:
Talent will out, as usual, but a lot of people will eventually be out of a job as a result of this.

You mean because of the incredibly low price? If so, this is only the next stage in a never-ending process to cheapen our profession that started a very long time ago. It still amazes me that on the one hand, the manufacturers are flogging endless new HD or even 3D sets, yet, at the same time, I-player on a laptop is so much in demand. Poor quality production on YouTube is becoming popular because it interests people, and not because it is technically well made. TV Dramas like "Waking the Dead" ditched in favour of more crap, but cheaper, reality tv.

All of this pushes production prices down, production values down,and makes programme making available cheaply to the masses. The strange thing is that all the technical tools to make the programmes are now much cheaper, but the content is worse.

I think production crew and companies including mine have got a very very tough time ahead. Only today, I had clients ask me about digitising material for them so they could then edit the files themselves - because they have bought the software, and it's cheaper than getting us to do it. Never mind that our results will look better - they really don't care about that. That's before we even get onto the subject of over-supply of Media students!

Chris
Time for a new signature now...

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

Chris, Don't get me wrong, I'm old enough to agree with almost everything you say.

It isn't the price of the software. That's almost an irrelevance to broadcasters.

What this is all about is making it as foolproof as possible for so-called "creatives" to do their own editing and sound. The powers that be regard the post production crafts as an unnecessary expense in much of current programming. (And, in many cases, given the subject material, they may well have a point!)

'Waking The Dead' and similar dramas are expensive all round. Talent, crew, post, even the location catering. But they are really not the point. Good drama is always going to cost, so the decision is, "How much expensive drama do we make which attracts audience?"

And, "How do we make more crap TV, but cheaper, to fill the spaces?" If they can employ people with no real craft skills, but some "programme making skills", for peanuts and remove the craft decisions from their incapable hands then they will do it.
The perception is that editing and sound post processes are largely mechanical and can be reduced to a set of algorithms. They really don't understand what we are all on about.
So, a software application which promises to relieve the "creatives" of those nasty, 'rude mechanical' chores is likely to be very popular.

In the events and weddings fields it will tempt yet more dillettantes to have a go. Fortunately for the wedding fraternity, the technical skills, although important, are secondary to the considerable number of others.

Ultimately, this approach is going to work. At least to an 'adequate' level. We may not like it, but the age of craft editors and sound post people working on the bulk of TV docs, reality and lifestyle TV are numbered.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007

I agree with both Rob and Chris here but I have spent two years banging away that even internet and you tube viral type commercial content can be produced to full broadcast spec by very skilled people by using the new lower cost technology that we are so lucky to have.

I bought a sub £10k HD camera two years ago and added a FCP suite to my pro tools set-up to offer full HD workflow from shooting to edit and to full sound dub as I saw what was happening in the mainstream TV industry.

Most of the muppet broadcast people up here in the north east where mainstream media doesn't exist dismissed me as being amateur and stuck to their DVcam and Digibeta kit with expensive Avid systems and AMS Neve dubbing kit.

Their work has decreased as they failed to keep up or invest in the future and are now left with some employment if the drama boys come to town bringing all their high end kit and crew and the post work goes down to London.

This week my £10k HPX371 camera is now approved for HD content creation by the BBC and my less than £10k FCP suite and pro tools dubbing set-up can now do full HD delivery to HDcam SR and dub full 5.1 for TV production. Even all the projects and indie features I have done over the past two years could now go straight to HD broadcast having been produced to full broadcast spec by skilled people but on budgets that would make Chris cringe even if it was a corporate film. (£2.5k in total for The Last Straw and £800 of it for a weeks shooting)

I said ages ago that the quest for 3D or putting camera's in the hands of so called producers (ITV media graduates and secretaries) would have it's day but with the cost of full BBC spec HD camera's now being sub £10k for the XF305 or HPX371 there are now real opportunities for skilled people to create content that still has the basic function as laid out in the 1937 BBC charter to Inform, Educate and Entertain the viewing public.

With new delivery methods that can give HD at far lower cost via ethernet it is now up to indie producers and the next generation to use the new technology to involve and find their audience rather than for the mainstream broadcasters to have the monopoly and feed us the crap that we have had for years. The record industry has already been through it and now it is time for broadcast to go through the same re-adjustment but at the end of the day if you produce crap music or TV people will not want to consume it.

As Chris knows I was at Tottenham last night and it was just absolutely obscene the resources that ITV had assigned to a football match but can desert their regional franchises to fill up four channels with pap and low quality content.

As they always say content is king but if we don't utilise the lower cost tools to do the job at out end it is all too easy to give five secretaries some camera's and point them at Jordan to then make up the story afterwards.;)

SimonMW
Offline
Joined: Nov 16 2004
Quote:
Poor quality production on YouTube is becoming popular because it interests people, and not because it is technically well made. TV Dramas like "Waking the Dead" ditched in favour of more crap, but cheaper, reality tv.

You Tube is trying to change their image though. They are investing millions in their own proper programming, and encouraging users to submit properly made content (not that they are obliging!)

There are two aspects to this. I do not think the cheapening of the software will change things. FCPX makes certain tasks easier to achieve (speed ramping, audio synch, timeline organisation etc). This is a good thing, as anything that makes editing faster and easier is a good thing from my point of view.

Of course this also means that certain things are easier for amateurs to do too, but the talent will still lie in how an edit is performed and put together. As someone else pointed out on another forum, all computers have a word processor of some sort, but how many people are churning out books?

As professionals we just have to up our game to stay ahead. Although some amateurs are now producing professional quality work, that's a whole different ball game from producing a video for a company to use under time and budget constraints.

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007

Spot on Simon and to use the recording industry as an example again anyone can go out and buy pro tools for £250 or even get a 24 track all in studio for less than £1,000 but it takes talent and drive to make good music then sell it to the masses.

But we as pro's in the industry should be assisting the creation of good content by using the low cost options to create new work so that we can reap back some of our creative input as well rather than letting the production secretaries and noo mediah muppets take over the world just coz they are the cheap option.

I can now sell myself as a multi skilled media operative with over 30 years experience but at least I have only had to spend £30k to get a full BBC approved HD camera, edit suite and dubbing set-up so that leaves more £££ to go into my pocket and I can keep my rates competitive.

Ten years ago I spent over £280,000 just to get the audio side up and running!:eek:

Lusky
Offline
Joined: May 8 2006
Gary Nattrass wrote:
Spot on Simon and to use the recording industry as an example again anyone can go out and buy pro tools for £250 or even get a 24 track all in studio for less than £1,000 but it takes talent and drive to make good music then sell it to the masses.

But we as pro's in the industry should be assisting the creation of good content by using the low cost options to create new work so that we can reap back some of our creative input as well rather than letting the production secretaries and noo mediah muppets take over the world just coz they are the cheap option.

I can now sell myself as a multi skilled media operative with over 30 years experience but at least I have only had to spend £30k to get a full BBC approved HD camera, edit suite and dubbing set-up so that leaves more £££ to go into my pocket and I can keep my rates competitive.

Ten years ago I spent over £280,000 just to get the audio side up and running!:eek:

That's it Gary, sell your Skill and ability. That can't be replicated nor bought cheaply. In the wedding industry I've always hated the idea of selling the equipment you use as a reason why people should go with you. It should be the end results.

Someone who knows what they're doing can film and edit a better production on an iPhone 4 than an unskilled guy could do with the best of gear.

Because of the web far before companies want/need video content and the reduction in cost for equipment makes it easyier for skilled people to do it for prices these comapnies can afford

John Paul

HallmarkProductions
Offline
Joined: Aug 29 1999

I think we are all on the same page here, and agreeing with things overall. However, I am definitely seeing that in our corporate work, more clients are buying in cheap kit (such as domestic HD cams Sony Vegas, and other NLEs), and "having a go themselves". I think it is very different from writing a book (using a word processor). The videos are being dumbed down, with simple news-type stories. The clients often watch the news, and emulate what they see. To suggest that they are not good enough quality would be burying

We charge less per day than we did 20 years ago - OK, our equipment investment has dropped massively, but, the cost of living has gone up to balance that.

Chris
Time for a new signature now...

Maxwell
Offline
Joined: Jan 13 2007

Gentlemen i think we are going down the wrong road. Basically we should be debating the new software.
At present i'm more interested about the FCPX what you think of it and those it come up to the required standard for those professionals?
Regards the other topic. I think that should be a other topic debate.

stuart621
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2001

It's a bit difficult to discuss any of that before anyone has got their hands on it.

Maxwell
Offline
Joined: Jan 13 2007

O.K. Sorry. But most of us must have seen the video. Plus there has been some feedback. Point taken.

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007

I am sure it will be great and I will update to keep on the latest version as I am a FCP user, if it opens up all 8 cores on my mac pro and allows me to do more then great as it will save me having to buy a new mac pro for even more years as I use it fine now with pro res HQ derived from my P2 cameras.

Interesting I got a load of offers from avid this week to buy their latest media composer for a low cost so they must be worried about future sales.

P.S and yes Chris the rates are the same as they were years ago so it's almost more profitable doing wedding videos these days................I'll get me coat ;0)

stuart621
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2001

I'm sure Avid will be worried. I think FCP is a great piece of software and I'm sure the new version will bring a lot of enhancements. I think the single viewer window might take a bit of getting used to but I'm certainly not going to write it off before trying it out.

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

I may well get a review copy and you will read anything important I find here first.
I'm hoping it might catch up with Edius - finally ;-)

I too had the Avid offers, so I think we can safely assume theya re worried. Their business model has been turned upside down over the last few years and they have not posted a profit for ages.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

PaulD
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2002
stuart621 wrote:
I think the single viewer window might take a bit of getting used to...

Hi
The one in the demo that turned into a two-up side by side display when needed? Sounds straightforward to me - I haven't worked with more than one broadcast video monitor since tape-to-tape editing days ;)

stuart621
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2001
PaulD wrote:
Hi
The one in the demo that turned into a two-up side by side display when needed?

Ah, right. Haven't watched the video - well, I started to watch but the constant whooping was too much for me. I noticed a few comments on other sites denouncing this version of FCP as the work of the davit as it looked a bit like iMovie! :)

The other new features will be enough to make me want to upgrade when the time comes.

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

Just been watching the hour long presentation. I've done one-on-ones with the English guy who introduced it. IF and it's a big IF, they can deliver what they are promising, then this is the biggest thing to hit the editing world in along time. It is indeed a paradigm shift. From mechanics to content.

I am slightly sceptical because these guys are consumate demonstrators and gloss over all the potential snags. OTOH if the "Magnetic Timeline" delivers what they seem to be promising and the compound clips work as advertised then this is a killer NLE at a ridiculous price. Count me in, even if I have to pay for it! And that is completely disregarding all the other desirable features they outlined in the presentation.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

HallmarkProductions
Offline
Joined: Aug 29 1999
Rob James wrote:

I am slightly sceptical because these guys are consumate demonstrators and gloss over all the potential snags. OTOH if the "Magnetic Timeline" delivers what they seem to be promising and the compound clips work as advertised then this is a killer NLE at a ridiculous price. Count me in, even if I have to pay for it! And that is completely disregarding all the other desirable features they outlined in the presentation.

Very good points about the demonstrators - though wasn' it Steve Jobs who could not get on the internet with his Ipad? :)
I haven't watched all the presentation, but, were questions from the floor allowed? I doubt it.
Magnetic timeline is potentially excellent indeed, whereas compound clips would appear to be more or less the same as Liquid containers (circa 1998 and onwards), but, still very much needed. It all reminds me of just how good an editing system Fast 601 was when it was launched all those years ago (background rendering, containers, pixel mapping etc etc)

Chris
Time for a new signature now...

Maxwell
Offline
Joined: Jan 13 2007

We have had some wonderful debate about this product. Funny none of us has touched the product. I'm waiting for the next stage when a fully display will be available for us to digest and some member actually having had a play around.
Should any feed backs materials after June the 12th when product is for sale.
Remember some of us dont understand them big technology words used. A little downgrade would help us.

SimonMW
Offline
Joined: Nov 16 2004
Quote:
I think the single viewer window might take a bit of getting used to...

Not if you've used Vegas for any amount of time :)

Maxwell
Offline
Joined: Jan 13 2007

At this present moment just for interest. What is the BEST editing software on the market?
Also what edit software is value for money?
Thank you

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

Best VFM is probably Windows Movie Maker, followed by iMovie and then the ap for the iPhone. There's lots of down-loadable free editing programs, just google it. Don't think you can have the 'best' editing program in the same way as you can't have the 'best' queen or 'best' car.

HallmarkProductions
Offline
Joined: Aug 29 1999

Maxwell - It depends on what you want to achieve, doesn't it? Also, what your budget is, and whether you are working commercially or as a hobbyist. Add to that your own speed of learning, and the variables are already too numerous to compute. At Hallmark, we use mainly FCP, with a history of using Avid Liquid before that. On our remaining pCs we have Avid media Composer and Sony Vegas 10, Shortly going to sell Avid, as it just doesn't warrant the expense for us.

At the budget end, Avid have just launched Avid Studio for about £65, that looks a real bargain for a hobbyist. Moving up, Sony Vegas and FCP I think will be similarly priced now (depends which platform you have) at sub-£300 and Adobe Premiere looks a lot more expensive (but not better, necessarily) as it is part of a suite only, I think (well, on a mac, it is). It is then a huge leap in cost to Avid MC, and I don't know anything about the cost of Edius, or its capabilities.

Chris
Time for a new signature now...

Maxwell
Offline
Joined: Jan 13 2007

Thank you for that. Most corresponded are from people who work in the field of making a living. Which is valuable information. But people who just work for fun or hobby, seldom come forward and express their opinion.
I'm in the hobby section and work with FCP7. I think it is a expensive software but a very powerful editing tool.
But it is always nice to know what other people use and like and opinion. Which should help the browser on this forum.

stuart621
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2001

I too am a hobbyist and use FCP. I think it's great but I can only really compare it to earlier versions of Premiere which I thought was OK but preferred FCP when I changed.

Horses for courses, though and whatever application people use, there will probably be things they like and dislike about it.

HallmarkProductions
Offline
Joined: Aug 29 1999

One thing that I have noticed lately is how much cheaper memory for our MacPros and Imacs is compared to memory for our Dell Precision PCs. All from the same supplier - Crucial Memory. When considering the upgrade to FCP it would be well worth factoring in a memory upgrade to the cost. Currently we have 6 or 8 gb (depending on which MacPro), and wonder what we should look at? I think that, as Gary said previously, the multicore Macs will still have plenty of life in them - but, I suspect they will need a substantial memory upgrade to get the best out of them.

Chris
Time for a new signature now...

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

Maxwell, I'm a sort of half way house between pro and amateur. I sometimes write about this stuff and I edit for my own enjoyment and also for a film festival and sometimes do odd bits for the local theatre and schools.
I'm in the fortunate position of having access to several of these packages. FWIW Edius is my "goto" editor, followed by Vegas, then FCP and in last place Premiere. I find FCP slower and less robust than Edius. Before discovering Edius I used Premiere 6.x. All these packages have pluses and minuses. For example, Edius is not great for sound. But then I would always use a specialist audio workstation software for that.
I could also have Avid MC but I am persuaded that, to get the best out it, you really need to be using it very regularly. In contrast to many, I rather like the Apple sound offering in the FCP suite. I hope they have either merged it into FCPX or will offer an updated version in the future. It would make far more sense to merge it in order to get full benefit from the "magnetic timeline" etc.
At the other end, free or budget, then Moviemaker and iMovie are OK with the lite versions of the bigger packages sitting alongside MoviePlus and Movie Edit Pro.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

Maxwell
Offline
Joined: Jan 13 2007

This has been a long and wonderful debate on editing software. How we all diverse into other software to achieve our editing goal or just like the simplicity of the software.
The one thing what is shouting out at me is that manufactures of software in all formats have too be on there toes to produce new innovated product to satisfy our needs.