Final Cut Pro Universal version now shipping

mcgeedigital said:
Not in practice it doesn't:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=50214&page=3
Click to expand...
I hate to rain on your parade, but the guy that had the problem tried to upgrade BEFORE Apple's announcement this week.

It states VERY CLEARLY in the upgrade form that the academic versions ARE upgradeable. It has been Apple's policy in the past that academic versions were not upgradeable. That changed this week.
 
Last edited:
The Sarlacc said:
That's a good sign then isn't it. ;) Because I know he had a ***** of a time on Cold Mountain.
Click to expand...
I was at a an LAFCPUG meeting a few months ago which had Walter Murch as a guest speaker.
He said editing Jarhead on FCP went really smoothly. Footage was transferred from Super35 to offline on DVCProHD (hey, good format! :thumbsup: ). According to him, the only real thing left for Apple to do is allow exporting of OMF files with keyframe (volume change) data in tact, to export to a sound house with Pro Tools. (FCP can export OMF, but not with the volume changes). The workaround is you have to use Automatic Duck, which works fine. Other than that workaround being required, he said cutting a major studio feature on Final Cut was superior to Avid, because for the same budget as for one avid system, they had four full-blown FCP systems, working at the same time.
Also, he said that because the latest FCP supports 24-bit audio, his audio edits in FCP become THE final audio. FCP is poised to kick avid off the throne.
 
Sarlacc, you keep saying Final Cut isn't ready for the big leagues, but why is not ready? Please give some real specifics, not just vague, unqualified statements.

Old habits die hard. FInal Cut's acceptance in the film world has a lot less to do with its feature set than the fact that Avid has simply been the standard for a long time. Editors know it. Post production supervisors know it. Producers know it, etc. And people tend to stick with what they know, until there's a VERY compelling reason to switch.
In a little over 5 years, Final Cut has gone from a new product to cutting major features. It's made remarkable progress, and it CAN cut "professional" features very competently. But again, old habits die hard. People who have known Avid for their entire careers are likely to stay with Avid, if it still gets the job done. And that's not a failing of Final Cut, it's simply how mindshare and market forces work...
 
I have used both and the media managment isn't that bad on FCP. That is the only thing that avid has against the Fcp SOFTWARE. I am currently cutting my film on FCP and I have about 17 hours+ with about 2000 clips and i'm not havng any problems. It's a matter of preference, I don't like how avid has its own closed type of workflow. FCP is more open. Basic and complex editing is pretty much the same but for doing anything more like putting effects ohh god avid is like 10 years behind and the interface is dated. Try putting more than 1 effect and editing its parameters, you have to nest....its a really slow workflow. You can do the same on each, give me one MAJOR thing you cant do in FCP, beacuse it is being used for PROFESSIONAL features and the list will grow. Ohh and you get FCP Studio which has very powerful tools! And you shouldnt compare the $1600 AVID system but the higher end one with Final Cut.
 
Last edited:
k2director said:
Sarlacc, you keep saying Final Cut isn't ready for the big leagues, but why is not ready? Please give some real specifics, not just vague, unqualified statements.

Old habits die hard. FInal Cut's acceptance in the film world has a lot less to do with its feature set than the fact that Avid has simply been the standard for a long time. Editors know it. Post production supervisors know it. Producers know it, etc. And people tend to stick with what they know, until there's a VERY compelling reason to switch.
In a little over 5 years, Final Cut has gone from a new product to cutting major features. It's made remarkable progress, and it CAN cut "professional" features very competently. But again, old habits die hard. People who have known Avid for their entire careers are likely to stay with Avid, if it still gets the job done. And that's not a failing of Final Cut, it's simply how mindshare and market forces work...
Click to expand...

I think you nailed it...old habits die hard...and most of hollywood is invested in Avid. Its changing, slowly. I never said FCP wouldn't dominate...I hope that is does.

And I think R Gale's post about Murch's thougts tell me things have changed. I only have the input of my friends who are professional editors. I do have FCP5 but I avoid editing at all costs...my place is with cameras.

BUT...not everyone has FCP5 either....in fact many people havent invested in upgrading...its like Avid...you go to hollywood post facilities and many of them are actually running older versions.

The change is coming...its just not there yet.
 
unfiltered said:
I hate to rain on your parade, but the guy that had the problem tried to upgrade BEFORE Apple's announcement this week.

It states VERY CLEARLY in the upgrade form that the academic versions ARE upgradeable. It has been Apple's policy in the past that academic versions were not upgradeable. That changed this week.
Click to expand...


Hey no problem, I'm glad I'm wrong!
 
intel core duo mini too weak for FCP?!

intel core duo mini too weak for FCP?!

jeffyjones said:
By the way... Apple says don't try to run FCP on a new Mini...

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303470
Click to expand...
Yeah, right, an intel core duo processor, 4 times faster than a G4 1.6GHz, is incapable of handling FCP?

That's hilarious.

They just don't want the minis to hurt their sales of bigger systems, so they built in this "incompatibility." It's insulting.

All it would probably take would be a minor tweak of one line of code to make it work. (maybe not Motion, because of the graphics card required, but certainly FCP could work with this processor) I predict someone will find a way around this b.s.
 
I just got the Final Cut Studio Universal upgrade in the mail. (I mailed in my FCP 4 install DVD a couple of weeks ago.) I was disappointed that Apple sent me only the install DVDs and a brief booklet on installation procedures but no printed documentation on the appications. On one hand, I don't have much of a basis for complaining because I went from FCP 4.5 to all the apps in FCS 5.1 for a measly $200. The books that come with the retail version of FCS probably cost Apple half that amount to print. But on the other hand, it's going to be a pain in the neck to learn three new applications from scratch by reading on-screen documentation. The pictures of FCS on the Apple website always show that big black box o' books, and there was no indication on the upgrade form or website that I would get a discs-only product. Before everyone points this out to me, I'll say a second time that I know this is a small quibble given the price I paid for the upgrade.

--Jeremy
 
Last edited:
R Gale said:
Yeah, right, an intel core duo processor, 4 times faster than a G4 1.6GHz, is incapable of handling FCP?
Click to expand...
The "hilarious" part is if anyone thinks a core duo is going to be 4 times faster than the G4 was, especially when running something like FCP.

Already FCP on a 1.33ghz G4 so thoroughly smokes my 2.66ghz P4 when playing DVCPRO-HD footage that it's just preposterous. I'm talking full-frame-rate, full-screen playback on the G4, vs. 2fps on the P4.

There's no way a core duo is going to be 4 times faster than that. They may have found some isolated benchmark where the core duo is 4x faster than a G4 on that specific benchmark, but no way no how will it be 4x faster when running FCP.
 
R Gale said:
They just don't want the minis to hurt their sales of bigger systems, so they built in this "incompatibility." It's insulting.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be that quick to judge. Seriously, video hardware isn't just for making pretty 3D. Even Avid is picky about the video hardware and driver. That Intel video chip they're using doesn't exactly have the reputation for being strong in any area.

As soon as someone edits HD on a Mini with FCP and posts something about it, I'll be sold.
 
Barry_Green said:
There's no way a core duo is going to be 4 times faster than that. They may have found some isolated benchmark where the core duo is 4x faster than a G4 on that specific benchmark, but no way no how will it be 4x faster when running FCP.
Click to expand...
You're right, it's not 4X faster. According to this Apple page, the benchmark for a Core Duo MacBook pro rendering HDV1080i60 footage in FCP is 2.1 times faster than a 1.67GHz G4 Powerbook.
Over twice as fast. Still darn impressive.
 
jeffyjones said:
That Intel video chip they're using doesn't exactly have the reputation for being strong in any area.
Click to expand...
You're overlooking something. That Intel chip is also in the new MacBook Pro, which is now the machine of choice for the best and Fastest FCP performance of any Mac system!!! Granted the Intel chip in the Macbook starts at 1.83GHz, and the Intel chip in the Mini is 1.66GHz, but the Mini is still way faster than a G4. Something's fishy.

jeffyjones said:
As soon as someone edits HD on a Mini with FCP and posts something about it, I'll be sold.
Click to expand...
So will I. :)
 
R Gale said:
That Intel chip is also in the new MacBook Pro...
Click to expand...
Nope, macbook has ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics processor, not some lame intel graphics and that's what counts in this case. CPU's in both intel macs toasts any g4 from last millenium any time...
 
R Gale said:
You're right, it's not 4X faster. According to this Apple page, the benchmark for a Core Duo MacBook pro rendering HDV1080i60 footage in FCP is 2.1 times faster than a 1.67GHz G4 Powerbook.
Over twice as fast. Still darn impressive.
Click to expand...
Well, again, I'll believe it when I see it.

Apple has quite a challenge in front of them, telling people for years about the superiority of the PowerPC system and then having to backtrack and somehow sell Intel PCs to that same core group. So I am not surprised at the proclamations they're making, but with my experience on the PC, and seeing what a lowly Mac can do... I dunno, I'm not buying these benchmarks.

First tests show that a dual-core Intel iMac is slightly faster than the previous G5 iMac, in most cases 10% to 30% faster.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/features/imaclabtest1/index.php

First tests of the dual-core Intel Mac Mini show it being about 40% faster than the 1.42GHz G4 Mac Mini.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/03/reviews/macmini/index.php

Sure there are some isolated cases where the new one blows the old one away, but I think anyone expecting that their new Intel Mac is going to be 4x faster than the old one is going to be quite disappointed, that's all.
 
Prior to joining with IBM, IBM was the evil company that Apple was "battling" against "for the rest of us". (Remember the 1984 Super Bowl commercial?)

Apple had to join forces with IBM (Power Chips) to fight the evil Windows/Intel (Wintel) combination back in 91. Both companies were trying to keep Microsoft at bay and shift market focus back to hardware from software.

Apple realizes that by now converting to Intel, they now become more mainstream. IMHO I think they secretly hope that people will modify Windows to run on their machines. They will get the best of both worlds. They will keep the Apple die hards in the fold and then have the billions of Intel users now considering a MAC instead of a Dell.

Once again Apple will change an old enemy to a new friend and partner.

So it should not surprise anyone that Apple picked the most optimimized tests to show a HUGE difference between the new Intel chips and the old Power chips.

Should be interesting to watch.
 
Last edited:
toke lahti said:
Nope, macbook has ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics processor, not some lame intel graphics and that's what counts in this case. CPU's in both intel macs toasts any g4 from last millenium any time...
Click to expand...
I didn't realize the Intel graphic chip was that weak. According to the specs, it can drive a 1920 x 1200 DVI display... but I guess I didn't expect a machine with such an uber-fast processor to be paired with a low performance graphics card. It's a shame... seems they could've made the Mini work with FCP, but chose not to.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Well, again, I'll believe it when I see it.
Click to expand...
I suppose all benchmarks used to hype a new product should be taken with a grain of salt. It will be interesting to see first hand how fast the Macbook really performs.
 
You all need to update today to MAC OSX 10.4.6, Apple celebrates its 30 years, lets wait for the quadra intels in our new PowerMacs and see... Not so long ago Apple claimed the G5 to be 2x faster than any Intel, they are changing fast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top