New FCP due in spring

Before you start complaining, why don't you wait until we know more about the new FCP? "Emphasis on “pro" and the fact that Apple wants feedback from pro users is actually very encouraging.
 
I agree, Larry sounded pretty upbeat and excited.
Got me excited as well, and made me think about holding onto FCP a little while longer and not switching to Premiere.
 
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the ipod version! Come on Apple I believe in you! :Drogar-Dum(DBG):
 
Personally, I'm happy with the interface the way it is. It seemed from the macrumors article that they wanted to give it a facelift and fiddle with functionality. The new interface might be great, but I think FCP's weakness lies in the way it handles footage (it's tough to explain but Avid users will immediately know what I'm talking about). In any case- good for them for making some dramatic changes. If it sucks, we always have 7 (I, in fact, am still on 6 most of the time)
 
My main wish for FCP is fixing the quicktime gamma bug, improved colour management generally, high bit depth float rendering throughout, 64 bit throughout for better speed and memory use. The interface can have a facelift so long as they do a good job, but my main demands on the system are of the under-the-bonnet rather than chrome-and-trim variety.

I'm trying out PPro CS5 in the meantime... I generally do prefer FCP, but it is hard to ignore CS5's Mercury Engine stuff, and I like being able to do multicam in a much more flexible way than FCP's multiclips.

So... will hold off getting FCP7 (I'm on 6.0.6) and see whether this promised awesome update is really awesome, or defect to CS5...

Cheers, Hywel.
 
I wish they would make at least a few audio upgrades to FCP, to save you from having to go to STP (or a good DAW). Sometimes you just don't want to go out of FCP for a round trip just to do some basic audio editing. If FCP would just display the actual GUI of the audio plugins you have, rather than putting up some crappy numeric interface more suited to 1980s computer users, I think I would be happy.
 
how about something simple like being able to display wave forms without bringing even fairly new computer to its knees
 
Hmmm. I can turn on wave forms, and they work fine. But I'm rocking an 8 core Mac Pro tower with 9 gigs of ram. Stll on long projects it takes a while to draw them, then re-draw them when I zoom in.
 
Chadfish said:
Hmmm. I can turn on wave forms, and they work fine. But I'm rocking an 8 core Mac Pro tower with 9 gigs of ram. Stll on long projects it takes a while to draw them, then re-draw them when I zoom in.
Click to expand...

I Left Adobe (and PCs) 4 years ago and that the one thing i still miss. almost any computer would draw the waveform instantly and not need to render/draw it every time you move around the timeline. it would also ajust the picture when you turnd the volume up and down in the timeline. imagine that.

im pumped about a new FCP. Im not holding my breath for Native h.264 editing or anything but modernizing/integrating/centralizing some of the other parts of FCS into the editing process would be very cool. How about doing "Color" right in FCP as you go without having too "Send To" so you could make editing adjustments after color if you need to.
 
I use both PP and FCP and I definitely prefer FCP's workflow, especially when it comes to P2. Hopes for FCP, less rendering, 64bit, Native P2 (without QT wrapping, although that is probably impossible as QT is the base engine for FCP), better file management like renaming of files in FCP renames them in the finder automatically. This week could be big.
 
Spotlight Media said:
I use both PP and FCP and I definitely prefer FCP's workflow, especially when it comes to P2. Hopes for FCP, less rendering, 64bit, Native P2 (without QT wrapping, although that is probably impossible as QT is the base engine for FCP), better file management like renaming of files in FCP renames them in the finder automatically. This week could be big.
Click to expand...

Which version of PP do you use? I only ask because it currently already does everything you say you hope is incorporated into FCP. Just curious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top