18 thoughts on “What we don’t know about FCP X at LAFCPUG”

  1. Looks like a fair amount of Color has moved over into FCPX. If only we could say goodbye to ’round-tripping’ altogether.

    Should we Cease and Desist anymore blathering on this subject until after next weeks London FCPUG meeting?

  2. Since Final Cut Pro X will – as I’ve been saying for about five weeks – ship on Tuesday June 21, there will be discussion before the London Supermeet two days later!

    You can guarantee it.

    1. Philip – quick question re: rendering in FCP X.

      Seems slick…

      But is it simply auto-rendering – meaning it happens in background and a cache of render files build up as they do now?

      Or is it more that rendering won’t be as necessary because FCP X timeline can handle far more files and formats without the need to render them?

      Or perhaps a combo of both?

    2. makes sense to me. would create a nice little ‘buzz’ just before the event.
      would be nice if they released new mac pro’s as well with the new ati cards. showing those 2 together would be unstoppable :-)) just think of the column inches…

      1. New Mac Pros would be nice. The rumor mill (and I have no data on hardware) says that not only will FCP X be released Tuesday (as I’ve said all along) but there are also “Thunderbolt products” coming. We will see.

    3. I’m coming to you from the future, It’s Tuesday the 21st (here in Oz) and there’s no FCP-X.. We always have to wait until “tomorrow” Down Under 🙂

  3. I think it will be a combo of both. There was definitely a little rendering shown at the sneak peek even though it didn’t seem necessary.

  4. Just a comment re: Larry Jodran’s recent post…

    Anyone read Larry Jordan’s most recent post? Is anyone else seemingly perplexed that he’s apologizing for a comment that FCP X wasn’t “PRO”? he made at the supermeet?

    Particularly when he his post after his intial preview was “jaw dropping” and the “future”…and his post right after the FCPX preview was “The Sound of 1700 jaws dropping”????

    There is a serious disconnect here somewhere…

  5. What Larry said that it wasn’t “ready for pros” based on the preview he’d been working with. But what he meant in context was that it’s version one software and no-one should bet their business on v1 software. ]

    That’s why the clarification I think.

    1. Right. And I understand the context of those comments and they are certainly valid – particularly in context as you mention.

      But his two enthusiastic “jaw dropping” blog posts seem mutually exclusive of “not ready for pros” and v1 software. They seem to be in conflict.

      Anyway…who cares just something that stuck in my head.

      Hope you’re right about Tuesday. Can’t wait to end rendering as we’ve known it.

      1. I don’t see the statements as being conflicting. I described it on twitter to someone as the difference between “Pro” and “Pro-ready”. Pro refers to FCPX’s intended market, which it definately is (though I’m sure we’ll see all sorts of argument on that). Pro-ready, refers to it’s stability as software, and whether it ready to migrate your business over to. With ANY of it’s past revisions, you’d be nuts to have done a day-one switch; with FCPX, so much has changed, both under the hood and the philosophy of how things get done, producers need to be especially wary of leaping before they look.

        More specifically, it will take some time for edits to come to terms with the new methodology that Apple is setting out. So not only do you have to think about if the software is ready for you, but are you ready for the software…

    2. Based on the preview he’d been “WORKING” with?

      It would make sense to let Larry beta test it.
      Anyway, Tuesday we’ll all know more.

  6. Oddly enough, as much as I have studied FCP X without hands on, I think it could have been totally reasonable to say Jaw Dropping/Stunning, which it clearly is, and also feel that it was to be approached with caution as a Version 1 product.

    What’s done is jaw dropping and I think it’s going to be a great way of working, but – particularly version 1 – might still not support every workflow that the variety of professional editors might currently be using.

Comments are closed.