FCPX 10.1.0 PRE-RELEASE DISCUSSION

Now I know this is a couple of pages back in this post but as a matter of interest there is a drink dispensing robot!

Although we didn’t have a chance to talk about a new Mac Pro at today’s event, don’t worry as we’re working on something really great for later next year.

At least we can take Tim Cook at his word!

I think our sufferings will come to an end this week, and if the law of Tuesdays holds true- in 3 days.

How about trimming Alex- anything new or interesting there in the code?

I mentioned my local Apple business rep asked me about configurations and such like a month and a half ago. So I don't take this as news or any indication of anything except business reps taking survey information. I don't see anything officially designating that quote is officially an "Apple" quote. Not saying its not real, just taking it all with a healthy does of caution.

It was a proactive call to me from Apple- and the guy was basically able to walk thru all the configuration options on his machine. Silly of me to have not asked for a few more configs while I was at it, but there you go...

I'm VERY interested to see if the prices I were given hold true.

alex4D wrote: Looks like optical flow-based stabilisation will be more flexible in 10.1.

Alex, You always have the best news!

I've been investigating iMovie 10 on a OS X 10.8 machine - even though it doesn't run in Mountain Lion, I could still take a look inside.

Today I updated to OS X Mavericks 10.9. It considered the iMovie 10 I copied from a Mavericks machine to be installed. I ran it to be sure. Software update didn't have a problem with it.

iMovie 10 is an unreleased version of Final Cut Pro X with an alternate UI and additional consumer features.

It ran fine in Mavericks on an external drive - it wasn't in my Applications folder. That is interesting news for those with slow spinning boot drives and fast SSDs connected by Thunderbolt...


@Alex4D

I think you'll be glad you upgraded, Alex. My personal feeling is that 10.1 will require Mavericks.

Pure uninformed speculation on my part, but I'm not sure I agree that the new X will "require" Mavericks. Apple has a very long history of not abandoning lower tier hardware users. Case in point, back when the original X was released, my then older MacPro was not supported, so that the installer wouldn't run. I had to use my more modern laptop to start
learning X. One day, I was messing around and moved the installed software from my laptop to my MacPro via target disk mode - and to my surprise it launched and ran OK. Not great, since that box didn't even have an "approved" video card - but it did run. Made me think that what Apple sets as minimum hardware is what makes the user experience "solid" - rather than what makes it "possible."

So I think X will likely run on lower powered machines, just not with what will hopefully be the outstanding performance and smoothness of the dual GPU tech of the new MacPro.

Said another way, I don't see Apple abandoning the current user base immediately by "requiring" the new hardware to run the new software. But we will see.

I'd agree with you except that 10.9 is installable (and FREE) on machines as old as 2008. That's 6 years worth of hardware compatibility- you and I both know that any Mac that's pushing those limits isn't going to be running X very well anyway.

Apple wants the same high adoption rate of OS upgrades on Mac as it does on iOS, it doesn't want to have Microsofts problem of having to continually drag behind it legacy users that won't upgrade.

Maybe I'm wrong, but if iMovie 2013 requires Mavericks, I think 10.1 will too.

Holy Benchmarks Batman!!!

www.macrumors.com/2013/12/15/new-12-core...ws-up-in-benchmarks/

daviddelreal wrote: Holy Benchmarks Batman!!!

www.macrumors.com/2013/12/15/new-12-core...ws-up-in-benchmarks/

Not sure If I should be disappointed or excited with the benchmark

Scrubelicious wrote:

daviddelreal wrote: Holy Benchmarks Batman!!!

www.macrumors.com/2013/12/15/new-12-core...ws-up-in-benchmarks/

Not sure If I should be disappointed or excited with the benchmark

Excited about the one underneath that one, that iMac looks yummy too though:

Just another thing regarding a new version of FCPX.

Several month ago I got an email from Apple saying I should have a look at one special open job at Apple.

Here a part of the job description:
...
Description
The successful candidate for this position is a hard working, detail-oriented, team player who is comfortable in a dynamic environment. You are good at handling complexity and driving projects through to completion. You have a background in Audio and Video and have a good understanding of the various media formats. You have a solid understanding of popular subtitles and captioning formats, including WebVTT, CEA708 and TTML.
...

It's very interesting to see that Apple tries to take care of future subtitle formats inside the Interactive Media Group (IMG).
"...Combining cutting-edge software techniques with next-generation hardware, IMG takes the media experience to the next level..."

- Andreas

Scrubelicious wrote: Not sure If I should be disappointed or excited with the benchmark

Geekbench - as I understand it - is purely a CPU and memory benchmark. So those results suggest the 12-core does a pretty good job of scaling linearly with its CPU count, and that (in some situations) core count can make up for clock speed. So to my eye the results are reassuring.

...but not very interesting. The major differences between an iMac and a Mac Pro are:

1. The iMac has fewer processor cores, but potentially at a higher clock speed.
2. The iMac has one laptop-class GPU. The Mac Pro has two desktop-class GPUs one of which is dedicated to compute support.

It's the second of those points which is most exciting for video editors, and Geekbench tells us nothing about the implications. My own hunch is that the Pro will offer around 3x the OpenCL performance of the iMac, which as the BruceX benchmark shows is already no slouch. But we'll have to wait and see.

Since we're all still waiting on the release of 10.1 and the mac pro(at least some of us) I would like to ask you all at whom are the D300, D500, and D700 aimed at?

I doubt I ever need 2 D700's, but I'm curious which kinds of workloads go with a certain GPU-set. Especially since there are 2 GPU's instead of 1. How much footage would each GPU-set handle max. Can they all do 4K? (not that I'm interested in 4K, not going to be shooting 4K for 2-3years probably).

would love to hear your opinions.

… .but not very interesting. The major differences between an …

I dare to sound silly (apologizes to all engineers, me stupid) but:

What can those numbers tell at all?

afaiu, it measures how fast this test is performed - but, I don't want to perform a test - I maybe export from 1080/50p proRes to 720/30p h.264; or apply 40% Gaussian Blur to a 5sec segment; or … yepp, you got the idea. That's why 'our' BruceX is so charming .....

Problem is:
FCPX is not avail for Windows; and e.g. Photoshop is - maybe - not as integrated into both OS (OSs? Osse? OS's??) …

… or are there tests, which compare in different apps and diff. OS the same processes? That would be interesting .....

Given the specs, and the main focus of the live demo at WWDC by Pixar, using the Foundry's Mari. I'd say they appear to be aimed largely at CG and VFX artists. Which is music to my ears
Not to say FCPX won't fly of course, but there's only so much power the average edit/editor needs.
Maybe we'll see a huge update to Motion sometime soon too. One that bring HDR environment relighting, basic 3D modelling and even basic texturing... Probably not, but if we DID see one, we'd definitely have a machine to run it on.

I think the guys at MotionVFX probably have enough inside sources that they wouldn't have spent a year developing mObject if native 3D objects were coming to Motion.

That said, those guys have announced HDR lighting for mObject.

It's very much the Element3D for motion we all hoped for.

Chazfest wrote: Given the specs, and the main focus of the live demo at WWDC by Pixar, using the Foundry's Mari. I'd say they appear to be aimed largely at CG and VFX artists. Which is music to my ears
Not to say FCPX won't fly of course, but there's only so much power the average edit/editor needs.
Maybe we'll see a huge update to Motion sometime soon too. One that bring HDR environment relighting, basic 3D modelling and even basic texturing... Probably not, but if we DID see one, we'd definitely have a machine to run it on.

I'em still hoping they get some guys from Pixar in there development... so we can get some useful features in Motion!