10.4 Release

DFPete wrote:

bobmax48 wrote: Apple did not show us everything that is new in 10.4. There are going to other stuff that will be added before the app is released.

You sure?

How would anyone know?

I can't prove it, but I've got a suspicion that Apple started a new strategy by these Creative Summit upgrades. 10.3 was received as being spectacular, radically different from the version before, and on purpose. A planned hype. They'll want to repeat this every year now. Judging from the pictures on the main page, I dare say they also made subtle changes to the design. *Just* color swatches isn't enough to excite the community (though we don't know yet, how well they'll work, how better they are in terms of user-friendlyness compared to CFP or Chromatic). That would be pretty lame, or, as screendor says, meh. So they may well be holding something back. We'll see if that's just my wishful thinking.

Axel wrote: … So they may well be holding something back. We'll see if that's just my wishful thinking.

uhm, well… by FinalCut-standards, the 'new' colour-wheels are not 'meh', let alone: you can, finally, keyframe CC.

But one can hear the Premiere/Resolve-guys shout "nananananaana - so, you have wheels & vectors? Big news! LOL"

So, in terms of marketing, that 360-stuff gets a bigger push to the front row "Do you have THIS??", although a niche feature. Very niche, I say.

Richard Taylors 'List of 100' offers tons of enhancements, from the AudioMixer to clip-independent Markers…

But I guess, it all (not just the tracker-thing) relates much on HighSierra - [strike]an OS, not yet supported by 80% of offered Desktop Macs (!)[/strike] = Fusion Drive. And what does Sam The Network Man Mestman say to APFS? … 

OS10.13.1 beta5 is out… now, test that on 2mio seats, with Jellyfishs, and Aja boxes and stuff… 

I dare to say, 'solidity' is #1 on the assets list… the eye-candy stuff comes later.

AND NO HINT ABOUT MOTION-X from California!! :silly: :woohoo:

What I fear is that FCPX will not work on lower specced devices, already my late 2013 retina macbook pro with 8GB RAM is lagging and not able to cope with the optimized media or with the proxy files as created by FCPX.

What was shown from what I understand was 10.4 on a top of the range fully specced out device , FCPX was not demoed on say a macbook air, or bottom of the pile macbook pro...Not everyone can justify replacements every few months, which, really maybe for the better, starts to separate the good from the bad....

For folks trying to eek a living from scratch work, using what they can, and here in South Africa, laptops are extremely expensive, this makes editing harder and harder, what should be simple becomes complex...I love editing, but the cost of replacing my 2013 retina for something a tiny bit better is just unaffordable!

I am sure 10.4 will be great, and have loads of new features that will require more horses under the hood than my device can stable...I wonder if this has been considered... I would love to email someone and explain to them..Look consider not only the Ripple training guys, and the big studios, but think of the small guys that are just trying so hard against ever increasing costs, maybe consider 2 versions of FCPX, a lite and a studio version, that could be used on weaker devices, that maybe does not have the same or as many tricks as the "studio" version..

I am thinking something like resolve, you get x in the free version but in the paid you get x and y added features...Please don't flame me, these are just my thoughts, I see huge potential in 10.4 and beyond, I just hope the app does not bloat out and become boggy, someone needs to be reasonable and stop and think of more than just the huge studios with jellyfishes...Those are great and there is a place...Thinking kind of like FCP Express..It had some of the features of FCP, no 3 way color wheel, and not sure what else was left out, but it was a great starter tool for final cut...

I just am speaking from the heart, I am somewhat sad that my very expensive laptop that cost a huge amount of inheritance cannot generate income....I tried to get the best I could, even swopped and paid more for the 8GB as this is what Apple said was ok to use....I just hope 10.4 makes editing available to folks like myself....thanks all!!

Karsten Schlüter wrote:

Axel wrote: … So they may well be holding something back. We'll see if that's just my wishful thinking.

uhm, well… by FinalCut-standards, the 'new' colour-wheels are not 'meh', let alone: you can, finally, keyframe CC.

Yes, and probably the colorboard wasn't enough for HDR, which is the most interesting (but quiet, almost parenthetical) announcement for me.

MsJustine wrote: What I fear is that FCPX will not work on lower specced devices ...

Apples main business is hardware. If you were them, you would - within reason - raise the system requirements just so that people buy new Macs. Would a gamer buy a $5000 -$10000 iMacPro? I doubt it. FCP 10.4 is meant as a reason to want these machines. They don't exactly struggle to let you keep your vintage computer.

Axel wrote: … HDR, which is the most interesting (but quiet, almost parenthetical) announcement for me.….

"We don't need more, but better pixels" (Larry Jordan) … yep, HDR is a bit under the radar… again: hard to sale: 4k has twice as much dots as 2k, and more is better. Easy. But how to explain John Doe, what 4:2:2 is? Or alone DR?? A mobile has no aperture, so what does f-stops mean anyhow … ?? … poor sales-guy.…

Axel wrote: … They don't exactly struggle to let you keep your vintage computer.

… hm, as the voice from the very low end of the min.specs.:
fun fact - HS is supported on my 5y old 'tupperware-box', and actually, I can handle, without dedicated GPU, 4k on it (which makes some PC-friends nuts…)

Another 'hu?' on my list of oddities: my 2y old iPhone6+ (still available) does not support many of the new marvels - I understand why, but that gives an 'excluded' feel too.

… and on the list 'no summit preview either': Compressor lists actually as 32bit app - needs an update too, …

And, yes, iMacPro is THE demo machine for video-processing… I still have the dream, a RED with an attached iPhoneX as 'meta recorder' for depth-maps, a new sort of 'multicam/sync' - and no more green-screen anymore! HA! :woohoo:

End of the year? Demands some nightshifts… 

If I was on the dev team, I would to be fair list the computers that would be best for Final Cut Pro X...When I bought my vintage macbook pro, it was only a year after the launch of Final Cut, still in the 10.0 days, and not long after buying my laptop,the specs on the apple.com website were updated when there was an upgrade of Final Cut, so I took my less than a few weeks old macbook pro 4GB RAM and paid extra and upgraded to the 8GB as the website said 8GB, 16GB for 4K, but sadly final cut never really worked all that well on this laptop...

It was only here on this forum I discovered why...the video card is really poor...I was so confused, it says it is a pro..Pro is meant to be be better...lesson learned....All I was commenting on is that as apps grow, they tend to bloat a bit, it happens, and who knows, maybe Wes Plate's wife's sister-in-law father's nephew reads this forum and says to Wes....What about this idea....

The point is not to point out the flaws in what I say, no commentary required... all I was pointing out is that a laptop younger than the product in question is already unable to handle the app for which it was bought, had I bought an AIR I would expect this to not work, I would expect the AIR to choke on pages or keynote and not work on Safari..I expected the PRO version to be a little more compliant...

Axel wrote:

joema wrote: - AVCHD excessive I/O problem if content is imported "in place" (bug)
[...]
- Inability to import "in place" any tree-based media from hard disk

I think these aren't bugs. For the first problem, you can compare with Premiere. Instead of *indexing* every clip every time it gets loaded to the player (and usually a subclip is loaded, with I-frames outside the used selection), Premiere permanently attaches a description in form of a text file, I think it ends ".XMP". FCP instead wraps AVCHD in a QT container....

BTW this has little impact on my team personally -- we haven't shot any AVCHD for years. I mention it mainly for the sake of others. Plus lots of people have archival AVCHD content or periodically receive it from various sources and want to add that to current projects.

A small amount of AVCHD imported "in place" into a library (IOW the bare .MTS files) can poison the performance of the entire library, whether you use AVCHD in a timeline or not. This is a very serious issue, and I'd define it as a bug, whether or not it is expected behavior from the perspective of FCPX development.

For "in place" import, FCPX does *not* wrap the AVCHD in a QT container. You are thinking about import with copy, not import in place.

The magnitude of the problem is shown by running the command line DTrace utility bitesize.d and comparing how FCPX handles AVCHD content imported "in place" vs content which is externally rewrapped by EditReady (or by importing to FCPX from the AVCHD bundle).

FCPX I/O histogram from scrubbing in Event Browser across several AVCHD clips imported "in place":

FCPX I/O histogram from scrubbing in Event Browser across exact same AVCHD clips imported "in place" after re-wrap with EditReady:

As you can see the "in place" AVCHD case took 61,749 IOs, whereas the rewrapped case took 2,612 IOs -- 24x as much. It is no wonder why AVCHD imported "in place" drags down performance. The problem is this can happen if only a few AVCHD clips are imported "in place" to a large library with 99.9% non-AVCHD content. It truly poisons the I/O performance of the entire library. I would classify this as a bug. The impact is worse since there is no Apple KB article on this, so people can get into this situation without even knowing it except their system becomes mysteriously slow.

I can't help but notice that there is no Audio tab on the pictures of the inspector, but there is what appears to be a "colour tab" This makes me very optimistic. Both for what this means for audio editing workflow, and colour correction workflow. I really don't want to have to add an effect to each clip whenever I want to do levels or wheels. The current work flow of the colour board is great, where I just have to have it open, then FCPX adds the correction when i make it. (fingers crossed) but this looks promising. but as for audio, there is the likely possibility that the selected "high contrast horse" clip, just doesn't have audio.

bobmax48 wrote: Apple did not show us everything that is new in 10.4. There are going to other stuff that will be added before the app is released.

You sure?[/quote]

Yes, because Apple DID say these were coming later this year in 10.4 "...and more." So that means there is more coming than they showed. Was absolutely said during the stage demo.


Axel wrote:
"uhm, well… by FinalCut-standards, the 'new' colour-wheels are not 'meh', let alone: you can, finally, keyframe CC."

We don't KNOW if you can keyframe color correction. There were keyframe diamonds next to text parameters that never worked, and only in a recent update did they disappear. But one could reasonably assume if you see it, it should work.

With technical and legal requirements to supply closed captioning and audio loudness limits, you'd think those would be a priority, being the law and everything...

@FCPX.guru

You can keyframe color corrections.

I was at the meeting at Apple last Friday. I do not know if the new color correction was able to be key framed. What I do know is that the new color correction system will exceed any of the other plugins that now are available to work with FCPX. The white balance will be a god send to any footage that was shot in the wrong color temperature. The controls for the color wheels and their exposure controls were smooth acting. Peter Wiggin’s article fairly details the new feature WE WERE SHOWN by Apple. And yes Apple did say “and more”. What does that mean? I have no idea but one thing does say to me is that we were not shown everything that is new in FCPX10.4. Now as to Apple handicapping the hardware so that you are forced to buy new equipment to use new features this is a ridiculous paranoid thought. If you want the Apple system to be like the Windows world where there are many different configurations with as many problems then you have no idea how lucky you are not on a Windows computer. It seems some people think that no matter what new features come into programs that they should be able to work with any configuration of the Mac. Be real, technology marches on and some older pieces of equipment no longer have the ability to run newer features. If you are an editor that makes a living editing video that makes you money then you understand this and deal with it. Has everything in this world become a reason to be a cynic about anything new? I think many of us new to step back and have a reality check. So this is that last comment I have on what Apple showed us at the summit. I have work to do.

I see it like this, not sure exactly how to describe it..So here goes..

Final Cut Pro X is going to become way more complex, this will require GPU and CPU power that is not available on lower end devices, maybe this is a ploy to get the higher end devices to be bought, and yes that is fine, but you have to consider that it would be great to have a powerful imac/mac pro to do the heavy work, but what if the app becomes too big to be used on even the top end laptops...

No more editing "on the road" editing in hotel rooms using laptops...All I hope is that maybe a "lite" and a "studio" version, in the "lite" you have access to higher compressed "proxy" files, akin to Felipe Baez's workflow, and boy that is a great concept and would work great in a lite version, so that a device 4 or more years old can still be economical and generate income..

If I could use my laptop to edit on, and my work starts to generate income, and this leads to upgrading, Apple wins, look Blackmagic know this, that is why Resolve is free, it does not have all the bells and whistles in the free version, and if you need more power, you pay for it, and that is great and healthy...

Final Cut Xpress was a gateway into Final Cut Studio, and it makes sense now to split the app into 2 versions, it has reached a mature stage now, more than 5 years on, and it is going to become even better, I know many will not agree with me, and that is fine....

The idea is, should Final Cut X be all things to all, at the cost of some? What is wrong with having 2 versions, a "lite" and a "studio" version...Just thinking, the "lite" version would not include certain advanced features that not everyone needs...VR for example, 360 degree work, not for everyone, it could become a bit confusing, so why not say include this in the "studio" version, as it is studios that would be using this more than say a video+editor for a tiny town tv studio...

I like the idea of having 2 options, of having a version that allows me to use higher compressed "proxy" files without the time wasted doing multiple compressions as per the Felipe Baez method...Thanks...no commentary required...Just my thoughts... :blush:

Well I do have something else to say. FCPX Express is now iMovie for macOS and iOS. As of FCPX 10.4 there is a seamless import of the iMovie projects. Check Peter’s photo of a iPad with mountain scenery . All of the footage was shot at 4K on an iPhone 8, imported to iMovie iOS and assembled . The project was saved to iCloud in the Files app and then downloaded to macOS and opened in FCPX 10.4. Anything done in iMovie iOS transferred perfectly into FCPX 10.4.

I always welcome new versions of FCPX.

In the meantime, there's not much I CANNOT do with FCPX. Audio Mixer and we'll be there

Karsten Schlüter wrote:
But I guess, it all (not just the tracker-thing) relates much on HighSierra - an OS, not yet supported by 80% of offered Desktop Macs (!) = Fusion Drive.

Karsten, this is incorrect.
The only thing that is not supported on Fusion-drive-equipped macs is the APFS file system.
High Sierra installs and works on HFS+ drives too.
Fusion drives are kept HFS+ when HS is installed, and so are plain old HD drives.

lichinho wrote: [… Karsten, this is incorrect.
The only thing that is not supported on Fusion-drive-equipped macs is the APFS file system.
High Sierra installs and works on HFS+ drives too. ….

… stand corrected.- Wasn't aware, the installer allows the combo of startup-drive + macOS/HS + hfs …

THANKS for correcting me!

A technical correction, MsJustine; newer versions of applications don't necessarily get more complex and larger and require more powerful resources. It is the OS that makes the difference here. FCPX relies mostly on "system calls". Most of what FCPX does is use tools built-in to the OS, so it doesn't need to bog down older machines. What it will do is require newer OS resources that older OS versions don't support the integration of. For example, FCPX supporting HDR is not FCPX doing more work or having more code, it is simply FCPX being able to ask macOS High Sierra to play back and recognize HDR video and photo assets.

Then the OS relies on the hardware resources of newer processing chips, and THAT makes older machines out of date. Not the bloat of the application.

Just some technical IT stuff. But at the end of the day, the result is the same, older hardware simply won't support newer OS's at some point, because they don't have the processing chips to do that sort of work the OS requires. Same result, but the cause is not bloated applications.

Bog down older machines is what is happening, yet strangely Apple maintain that 4GB and 8GB is alright for Final Cut Pro X, it says so right on the website under tech specs for Final Cut Pro X...

So if 8GB is the maximum RAM suggested by Apple, my 8GB RAM retina should be flying, but it is not...and it it a pro 8GB..The tech details about system calls is interesting, and maybe accurate, I don't know enough to say yes/no...

All I see is more complexity in the code, it has to be more complex, giving the new VR/360 and other new goodies yet to be discovered...All I was thinking was 2 versions, one lite, one not lite, full of the goodies VR/360 require...those aspects might be great for some folk, why not have have more than 1 version of FCPX?

Thank you for the information...Just a bit annoying that a very expensive device, really cannot be used successfully, it does run FCPX, just not very effectively...

MsJustine wrote: Bog down older machines is what is happening, yet strangely Apple maintain that 4GB and 8GB is alright for Final Cut Pro X....if 8GB is the maximum RAM suggested by Apple, my 8GB RAM retina should be flying, but it is not...

FCPX 10.3.4 runs very well on my 2013 MacBook Air, which has has a 1.7Ghz dual-core i7 and 8GB RAM. Editing 1080p H264 material is very fast and fluid. 4k H264 is somewhat sluggish but it's about as fast as Premiere Pro CC is on my overclocked Windows desktop machine. With proxies (which are often required for 4k h264), the 8GB MacBook Air is very fast -- even with 4k multicam.

I don't think 8GB is the maximum RAM suggested by Apple -- it's the *minimum* suggested for 4k editing. If you are editing 1080p, then 4GB is the minimum suggested.

I don't recollect needing proxies on any 1080p H264 material, although I'm usually working on an iMac. For 4k H264 I use proxies as a standard procedure, even on a top-spec 2017 iMac 27. However that machine is fast enough to edit some single-cam 4k H264 formats without proxies.

In these cases it's not the software that's getting slow or bloated, but the codecs are getting computationally more difficult. In general FCPX is much faster and more fluid than Premiere on the same Mac hardware.

If you went back in time several years to FCPX 10.1 and tested that vs today's 10.3.4 or 10.4 using the same codec on 2013-era hardware, I don't think you'd find the modern versions any slower. If you tested 10.1 vs Premiere Pro CS6 on 2013 Mac hardware and same H264 material, CS6 would probably be much slower than FCPX 10.1. IOW going back in time and using an earlier version of the app would not be any faster, whether the app is FCPX or Premiere. FCPX was faster than Premiere five years ago and it's still faster today.

While it's not "bloat", new features may require updated hardware to run well. A likely example is VR which is very GPU-intensive. My 2016 MacBook Pro has 2.2x the GPU performance of my 2013 MacBook Air, and my 2017 iMac 27 has 7x the GPU performance.

Another example is H.265/HEVC support. High Sierra and FCPX 10.4 may support this to but to run it well may require a Kaby Lake or later CPU. It's just a hardware reality -- the updated Quick Sync logic is required to decode that rapidly. There's nothing Apple can do about that. The industry inexorably moves forward with new codecs, APIs and standards, which often requires updated hardware. If anything Apple is wringing more performance out of older hardware than anyone else.

I obviously haven't tested it yet but it's possible the new 10.4 color features will be much faster than existing 3rd-party plugins -- on the same hardware. It might even be faster than the previous built-in color effect but we'll have to wait and see.

I keep hoping with each update of Final Cut and each update Sierra and now High Sierra, that maybe something will work with this laptop...

Ha..you have i7, I have i5..from what I have been able to discover, no help from Intel at all, "please speak to Apple.." was the tweet reply from the nice folks at Intel twitter :whistle: ... What I have discovered is that it is a Haswell and not a very good Haswell, read somewhere that it was suggested to sell more air's Apple upgraded the air and left the pro with less than steller specs...

Why I have an i5 and you an i7 ??? Not sure, not saying that is the reason, this could just be a Monday after a long weekend build...Had a fridge that was "a post long weekend build" never worked 100%....

Thanks...