TOPIC:

Vlastavision wrote:

I've heard rumblings of the alleged delay of FCPX due to problems with OS X 10.9.1, does anyone know anything more about this?

I'm not so sure about that. I havent seen any known issues in the last two 9.1 betas that would hinder FCPX. Mostly internet related things from what I can tell. I could be wrong though.

The 10.9.1 talk (which I've seen Alex4D mention on twitter) is curious, since it would presume there's something in it necessary for either the MacPro or FCPX 10.1. But I can't imagine it would be 10.1, since beta testers must have been using it on at least 10.0.X for months now.

I'm betting on Tuesday next week, the 17th. And some folks will be wailing and whining and creating all sorts of ugly sounds until then. But, I could be wrong.

Not meeting a release date has no basis in fact what so ever, and is some rumor some jerk made up off the top of his head.

It's a total pet hate of mine when Apple get slammed for not releasing that thing they never said they're working on. I've had insanely heated 'discussions' about how apple suck for not releasing a watch or revolutionary TV over the Summer. You know, those products that they never announced they are working on.

Might as well trash Adobe for not releasing that new games console. You know, the one with the game like call of duty where you fire kittens at eskimos. I can make shit up too

CBlakeston wrote:

You know, the one with the game like call of duty where you fire kittens at eskimos.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!! OMG, I can't breath!!!!

"You know, the one with the game like call of duty where you fire kittens at eskimos. I can make shit up too"

Yeah, but you should copyright that shit... I'm totally stealing that idea and making that game.

On topic... did it ever occur to anyone that Apple just wants the software to be, um... *done" before they release it? I'm glad they're taking their time. Yes, I want it NOW! lol But I can wait... 10.0.9 works quite well...

Yes, plysat, you are absolutely correct with that assumption, I can assure you of that much.

They could pump out a multicam that worked just like every other multicam ever done, yes? But they don't work that way. They took as much time as it required to figure out how to do it "better". We waited. And the wait was worth it.

So, you want it now, or do you want it done right?
You want Media Composer, or do you want evolution and the future?

BenB wrote:

So, you want it now, or do you want it done right?
You want Media Composer, or do you want evolution and the future?

What great comment! I agree... to bad Apple doesn't agree and released FCPX to soon with out any multi cam support.

You could get both evolution and future with Media Composer simply by adjusting your workflow.

Um, explain to me what is "evolutionary" about Media Composer? I must have missed something.

BenB wrote:

Um, explain to me what is "evolutionary" about Media Composer? I must have missed something.

It is as much evolutionary as FCPX. The only thing that is evolutionary and for the future is the work that you produce in the NLE and not the NLE itself.

FCPGuy wrote:

What great comment! I agree... to bad Apple doesn't agree and released FCPX to soon with out any multi cam support.

While I think FCPXs reception may have been marginally better if Apple had originally launch with the feature-set of 10.0.3- there's still so much different on a fundamental level that many would still have had pretty much the same reaction. As long as FCPX doesn't have traditional tracks, it's never going to be the NLE some want. And that's AOK.

On a purely selfish level, I was happy to have FCPX in my hands to play around with from June '11 to February of the next year, familiarizing myself with all the great things it already did, so when I was ready to move my business over in April '12, I was that much further ahead.

Disproportionate wrote:

FCPGuy wrote:

What great comment! I agree... to bad Apple doesn't agree and released FCPX to soon with out any multi cam support.

While I think FCPXs reception may have been marginally better if Apple had originally launch with the feature-set of 10.0.3- there's still so much different on a fundamental level that many would still have had pretty much the same reaction. As long as FCPX doesn't have traditional tracks, it's never going to be the NLE some want. And that's AOK.

On a purely selfish level, I was happy to have FCPX in my hands to play around with from June '11 to February of the next year, familiarizing myself with all the great things it already did, so when I was ready to move my business over in April '12, I was that much further ahead.

I agree with you. It is good to be ahead everybody.

BenB wrote:

Um, explain to me what is "evolutionary" about Media Composer? I must have missed something.

Media Composer is evolutionary, it evolves slowly, sometimes painfully so, because the entire industry is dependant upon it and Avid can't afford to be too evolutionary or revolutionary. Many of the professional film editors like to concentrate on getting the job done as quickly and creatively as possible on the tool that they are familiar with, they can't be bothered to relearn a software whenever a new version is launched. Most of them are not even too technical, they want to learn one software and used it till the end if possible so that they could concentrate on doing what they love the most, editing. That being said I love FCP X, I use it almost exclusively because it enables me to get the end result that I had envisioned in my head without thinking too much about how this is done and how that is done, the software gets out of the way and helps me to not concentrate on IT but on the job that I should be doing. And that's the only thing that matters essentially, for someone Avid does this, for someone it's Adobe, for me it's FCPX.

All NLEs are evolutionary, otherwise they'd never receive updates. Compared to Avid, however, Final Cut Pro X is certainly revolutionary because it challenged the historically used track-based timeline (among other things). Does this make it better? This is purely a matter of personal preference. But it is definitely more forward-thinking because it has adopted a new editing paradigm. All of the Avid apologists seem to defend it based on its cemented foundation; this is the antithesis of change --the strength of Avid seems to be that it stays the same. It is a perfectly fine NLE. But it is not revolutionary.

Or to put it another way, Avid is like driving a car with a stick shift and some prefer that.

I'd go one further: Avid is like driving a car. Final Cut Pro X is like flying a car. No tracks means no traffic rules...

cseeman wrote:

Or to put it another way, Avid is like driving a car with a stick shift and some prefer that.

Oh no don't say that since stick shift is much better then a boring automatic. No really I stick is definitely better driving tool.

cseeman wrote:

Or to put it another way, Avid is like driving a car with a stick shift and some prefer that.

Interesting then that I edit on FCP X but I drive a car with stick shift. And I would never change it for an automatic. If we use a driving analogy I'd say that FCP X is like driving a new BMW i8 or McLaren MP4 whereas Avid is like a '68 Mustang.

"Final Cut Pro X is like flying a car."

Bad analogy... FCPX crashes way less than I'd imagine flying cars would. Also, when X crashes you just pick up where you left off, nothing is lost. When your flying car crashes...

plysat wrote:

"Final Cut Pro X is like flying a car."

Bad analogy... FCPX crashes way less than I'd imagine flying cars would. Also, when X crashes you just pick up where you left off, nothing is lost. When your flying car crashes...

Hmmm I wonder if we can get to 1000 posts before we get any FACTS!
FWIW I'm sitting here firmly in Tuesday, sometimes it sucks living in the future.