FCPX vs Premiere 5.5 - Anyone use both?

etresoft wrote:

russellfromauckland wrote:

Oh dear. Clearly you did not read what I wrote.

I've read enough. You joined Apple Support Communities for the sole purpose of trashing Final Cut Pro X. That isn't what this site is for. This site is for people to help other Mac users with problems. If you want to complain, do it on Slashdot or some internet blog.

Your accusation that I'm parroting others is an insult to someone who has been editing for 25 years.

I have no way to verify that. All I know is that you joined Apple Support Communities on June 21st and have done nothing but complain about Final Cut Pro X. Had you joined 4 years ago and posted lots of helpful suggestions for other people using Final Cut Pro, then I might be more inclined to believe you. Maybe you have been editing for 25 years. I don't know. I do know that you are not helping anyone now.

Wow.... So if he had been a member for years it would be OK for him to trash (Which IMO he DID NOT DO) FCPx. In my book, he has been a member since he started using FCP. And a valuable one. Most people in these here forums are clearly spending more time writing than editing.

Then go ramble on about THIS being a technical support forum only to start yourself with non-technical nonsense.

There's a word for that : Hypocrite

The most funny comment you made was that Apple aint reading these forums....

Who are you kidding but yourself? These threads get edited and DELETED all the time.

You are NOT the police here. So please let people say speak their mind. Should be freedom of speech.

Thanks Studio Engineer.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm missing something. Why do some people here instantly understand the cataclysmic impact this has had on the post-production industry and, by association, those people's sense of betrayal, whilst others appear not to begin to have a clue?

The issues at stake here are not mere operational details of a technical nature, something at which this board has excelled. No, the arrival of FCP X brought into question fundamental questions about hardware, third-party software, training, workflow and professional credibility, to name but a few. Surely these are highly relevant issues for this board to discuss? Most of us are in the same 'shock and awe' boat, and sharing our fears and ideas as to how to navigate out way out of here is at least therapeutic, perhaps potentially even life-saving.

Trust is a fragile thing. It takes a long time to build, but can be shattered in a blink by an uncaring, unthoughtful action. Or, and this is what makes recent events so hurtful, in an apparently deliberate and calculated move.

All I wanted after FCP 7 (2009) (although arguably since FCP 6 2007) was FCP 8, with the essential enhancements most users wanted: bug fixes, 64-bit and rendering acceleration. Heck, if we'd got that I would have been ecstatic.

However, for some reason Apple thought better and made the decision that FCP 7 was broken and needed a total rewrite. I do not agree. We're not at a 'Betacam is dead, time to ditch the linear BVE900' moment. We're also not at a 'capture from tape is old hat, time to ingest files directly' moment (although for some houses this is still an occasional but essential requirement). Actually, we're not at any great 'game changing' threshold at all, except that, yes, online distribution is becoming increasingly important, but it's a continuing trend, not a revolution (FCP 7 already had some of these 'Share…' features (even if some did not work......), so nothing really new in FCP X there). I do believe Apple's vision could have been accomplished with a genuine upgrade of FCP 7 to FCP 8, even if it required some rework to the underlying technology.

It's taken me a huge number of unbillable hours to get my workflow operating with third-part apps in a manner that is robust, reliable and readily understood by others I collaborate with. FCP X may have some great technology underneath it, but it is currently completely incompatible with my workflow. Now, that may change, but (a) I have seen nothing official that tells me FCP X will provide the necessary hooks to do so, and (b) such hooks require third-party companies to re-engineer their products, something I am not confident will happen. Even if these two unknowns were to happen, I then have to ask myself, 'given the events of the past few years (think Shake, QT-X, etc), do I still want to persist with FCP?' Will I get fooled again? Perhaps like Apple, I should not be sentimental about my future decisions.

People who use FCP 7 for eight (actually, sometime up to 16) hours a day know the keyboard shortcuts, etc., and how to get things done fast. From what I see and hear of FCP X, it is not actually significantly faster in getting to the end result. It may be 64-bit, but it does not have an equivalent to Adobe's Mercury Playback Engine, which achieves faster than real-time rendering by off-loading it to a GPU card. You may now be able to continue to edit FCP X before it renders, but it still has to render, albeit in the background, which takes time before you can export the final finished product. As far as I can see FCP X still does not fix this fundamental problem: It appears I still can't do fast rendering with FCP X (I'm doing a test now with some filters and a speed adjustment in FCP X and it's still only 32% complete and by the looks of it won't be done for some time yet, although my test edit is 'finished').

Sorry for the rambling post, but it's late. However, I can't help feeling this is a pivotal moment for Apple. How they respond in the next few days will speak volumes about how they and their presence in the professional applications market will be perceived.

At a personal level, it's as if my 'marriage' with Apple has gone from unconditional love to severely damaged goods. This is not a healthy watershed in any relationship. And as I said in my opening remarks, trust is a very fragile thing. For me, and perhaps for many people on this forum, I fear the relationship has been irrevocably damaged going into the future. And if this is true, then it's been a completely avoidable monumental tragedy.

I'm with you on that, compatriot... the loss of trust here is astonishing. We have a clutch of Macs here running Avid and FCP, but with FCP a dead duck, high end PCs are looking attractive for the first time ever.

Studio Engineer wrote:

So if he had been a member for years it would be OK for him to trash (Which IMO he DID NOT DO) FCPx.

Not at all. This isn't a place to trash software you don't like. It is meant to help other Apple customers. Trashing something isn't going to do that. I would say the same (and have on many occasions) to people who have been here for years.

The most funny comment you made was that Apple aint reading these forums....

Who are you kidding but yourself? These threads get edited and DELETED all the time.

Only when people are abusive, obscene, or try to hijack threads, as is being attempted in this thread. Apple does not read these threads for any technical reason, only for moderation. When a new product like Final Cut Pro X is released, the moderators are overwhelmed by the abuse reports and can't catch everything. It turns into a bit of a wild west show.

You are NOT the police here.

I may not be the law around here, and I may not carry a badge, but I live in this little holler too and I'm going to do my part to make it a civil and rewarding place to be.

So please let people say speak their mind. Should be freedom of speech.

Alas, this is private property. You are free to say anything you want on US government-owned property, within designated "free speech zones", if present, but that is not the case here here. This is Apple-land.

The person who started this thread did so with a valid question. If anyone has information about the relative speed of Final Cut Pro X, I'm sure that information would be welcome.

I have been using final cut pro X on a macbook pro 2011 model with quad core i7, 4gb ram, ATI radeon HD 6750 with 1gb vram.

Initiallu with snow leopard just when I started using FCPX it seemes like it was working fine performance wise. But not sure, cos hardly in less than 2 days the macbook ws updated to lion. So, there wasn't much testing of FCPX on snow leopard.

After updating to Lion, FCPX worked fine initially, but as my project progressed to cross over 1min30secs or about 2mins, FCPX made my machine a complete dog. It was terribly slow and nothing was working fine. The beach ball started showing every now and then. Even starting up FCPX takes a lot of time now when it tries to load that project I was working on.

I started observing RAM usage after this slowdown of FCPX, and I notice that as soon as I start FCPX, it takes up almost all the available RAM at that point which is about 2gb. So, I am thinking that is the reason for the slowdown of FCPX. now, I need to know that for sure because I wanna upgrade my RAM to 8gb, but if it helps only. can anyone help me with that.

etresoft.. drop the mightier than thou attitude. FCPx has all but destroyed the FCP community, these forums are now a joke, and you want to lecture people on how to conduct themselves?

Give me a break.

If these forums are a joke, what are you doing here, and what prompted you to jump back into this thread almost 10 days later? Just curious.

Tom Wolsky wrote:

If these forums are a joke, what are you doing here,

Nostalgia, and the hope I might pick up some useful news regarding the future of FCP 7.

and what prompted you to jump back into this thread almost 10 days later? Just curious.

It was on the first page of the forum, so I figured it was still an active thread and open.

What surprises me most about the supposed armaggedon for FCP with Professional Post houses is that a truly professional post house would even consider a version 1 piece of software for use in a facility. Clearly it isn't ready for anything with a collabarative workflow as most post houses need, nor would I have expected it to be.

So then why judge it as it is now? For users like myself it works very well, I'm using it every day for real world projects and for a V1 it's surprisingly OK, the more I use it, the more potential I can see it having. However when I was running a facility I would never have deployed it in it's current version.

However In a years time it may actually have many of the missing elements it needs, as well as (hopefully) being a more mature software platform. Surely then would be time to make the judgement?

FCP7 works just fine now and will continue to do so into the near future at least, having said that, EOL'ing FCP Studio was a ridiculous move considering how immature FCPX is.

Yes you need more RAM, 2GB is not enough

I have 4GB ram. When I first open FCPX without anything else running. Available RAM is around 2.5GB ram. I mean the minimum requirements state 4GB RAM for the machine and I have it. If not awesome, FCPX should atleast run decently on 4GB RAM.!!!

What are your system specs? asked cos it seems to be working fine for you.

Steve Connor1 wrote:

What surprises me most about the supposed armaggedon for FCP with Professional Post houses is that a truly professional post house would even consider a version 1 piece of software for use in a facility. Clearly it isn't ready for anything with a collabarative workflow as most post houses need, nor would I have expected it to be.

Probably because it's being sold as Final Cut Pro 10. Not a different "product name here" version 1.0.

It's completely different software being sold as an upgrade to an exisiting product that it has no actual relation to.

pancenter-