10.0.3 DISASTEROUS

Rob A. wrote:

Check what controller the SSD uses, Trim support can be irrelevant on some SSDs as the controller handles it. Most newer SSD's have no need for Trim support. But again, make sure you research the SSD and what controller it uses.

Also be careful as some SSD manufacturers are essentially running the memory too fast to increase performance at the cost of reliability. . . . .

geez this is sounding rather complicated. how on earth would i find such information on controllers and which one is and is not the right chap?

BTW if anyone is intested, for the heck of it check out the posts about fcp x problems by doing a search accordingly. WOW! there are so many it is unbelievable. this one is now longer than the constitution and bill of rights combined and there are others that are equally as long with similar issues including equipment malfunctions and unrecognized hardware by the software whose manufacture and designer is one in the same. how can that happen?

Penn-Ohio wrote:

Rob A. wrote:

Check what controller the SSD uses, Trim support can be irrelevant on some SSDs as the controller handles it. Most newer SSD's have no need for Trim support. But again, make sure you research the SSD and what controller it uses.

Also be careful as some SSD manufacturers are essentially running the memory too fast to increase performance at the cost of reliability. . . . .

geez this is sounding rather complicated. how on earth would i find such information on controllers and which one is and is not the right chap?

BTW if anyone is intested, for the heck of it check out the posts about fcp x problems by doing a search accordingly. WOW! there are so many it is unbelievable. this one is now longer than the constitution and bill of rights combined and there are others that are equally as long with similar issues including equipment malfunctions and unrecognized hardware by the software whose manufacture and designer is one in the same. how can that happen?

The SandForce controller has it's own garbage collection and you in fact do NOT want to have TRIM enabled.

http://blog.macsales.com/11051-to-trim-or-not-to-trim-owc-has-the-answer

There is no "easy" answer, you'll just have to research what controller the SSD uses and go from there. I've presented just one example of an SSD that takes care of itself without TRIM support. More and more SSD controllers are now doing their own "garbage collection" so TRIM is becoming obsolete (propably why Apple were reluctant to have add TRIM support in the first place).

But an SSD isn't going to solve anyones FCPX 10.0.3 problems ... only Apple can solve that by either allocating more software engineer resources to FCPX, better testing, and/or decide if they really want to be in the market of video editing. But either way, we'll never hear from Apple about FCPX so you need to consider if that's something good for your professional environment ... for most it's not a good thing and they move on.

OP....

Take a look at this thread... It could rid you of your stuttering problems

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3767577?tstart=0

Just curious to know how you are getting on with the poor performance and has the 10.0.4 update improved matters at all?

along with "Ian R. Brown" i tool would like to hear from some folks about final cut pro x and its' present state . . this is . . has it climbed out of the slippy mud pit it was in previously?

my interest in particular is mulitcam with three or more cameras of dv, hdv, and h.264 out of a canon dslr 5dm2 and 7d.

0.4 seems to have cleared up the title rendering issues, at least for me. In general the whole program runs smoother and faster, what was interesting was a bunch empty clips that showed up in one of my events after the update. There seems to be alot of bug fixes and support for more frame rates and cameras than the update suggests.

Yes, I can also confirm that in the Import window it sees and imports native 1080/50p (and presumably 1080/60p) clips just like any other.

@ Rob A. Hey Rob, I've been away for a while and I just read your response to my posting of O'Conner's quote. And my response is this, if we were in Philosophy 101 I agree with you totally, however, I'd venture to say that you understand what I mean by truth, respect, and civil.

As for the relevance, I have found even myself "jumping the gun" in my frustration, later to discover that my problem was either due to lack of knowledge on new products such as FCPX or at least somehow fixable.

The one thing I'd say is completely relevant and relative in terms of FCPX is how much patience people have to work through issues with Apple, or whether or not people should be working through issues with Apple, where Apple should have solved them on their own.

Anyway, what I really want to say to all is that I had many problems with FCPX. Maybe most of the problems that others encountered on these threads. After a complete format and clean install of OSX and FCPX to 10.0.3 and with the recent update to .4 I have absolutely (thank god) no problems. My system is smooth and I'm keeping it lean and mean. Of course one should have the required horsepower...but after all that I am really enjoying FCPX now. I dont produce feature films...but for my small studio needs it is superb...and I do believe it is growing fast.

In Conclusion, FCPX is a program to grow with. If one has grown with previous versions FCPX may be abrasive to them. But if one has the patience and time to grow with FCPX I think now is the time.

PS and for those who recognize me on these forums - I am not one to blindly support Apple. I try to be just...

bill33 wrote:

@ Rob A. ...After a complete format and clean install of OSX and FCPX to 10.0.3 and with the recent update to .4 I have absolutely (thank god) no problems....

This statement is more less exactly what one has to do with Microsoft platforms ... not many years ago a selling point for Apple's platform is that one should NOT need to do this to get software to work. For some of us, this "solution" can mean weeks of work "re-constructing" our environment -- with deadlines looming this is a luxury few can afford.

A well designed interface should not require a lot of patience and shouldn't introduce an excessive learning curve, I found FCPX interface to be very "worky" and un-natural to one's work flow. I'll admit I haven't tried 10.0.4 ... I've read about issues with it and issues with Red but I'm not following FCPX much as I'm deep into Adobe CS6. But to be honest, it really doesn't matter, most video Pros and/or hobbiests can get "used" to how FCPX interface works just as they can with Avid, Adobe, Vegas, others -- it's not that difficult. Where it becomes a "problem" is in the efficiency of workflow and/or how well it permits creativity.

I've sold most of my Mac hardware and moved over to Windows 7 and all the hardware that works with Windows 7. If you want to do a comparison between FCPX 10.x and Adobe CS6, it would be like comparing Microsoft Paint vs. Maxon Cinema4D.

FCPX + Motion + Compressor = $399 and CS6 is estimated at $2399 (full suite) so we're looking at a $2000 difference ... is that difference worth it? IMHO yes, absolutely YES! It would only take a week of working with CS6 to see it pay off in real time savings.

Some of the things that CS6 has:

1. UI is very much like FCP 7 yet highly customizable

2. GPU support (if you have the right GPUs)

3. It can do everything FCP 7 can do and much more and much faster

4. 3rd party support software and hardware is extensive

5. Multicam support that doesn't bring one's hardware to it's knees

6. Color grading

7. Blu-ray support

8. DSLR footage

9. Seamless photoshop integration

10. Prelude for quickly laying out the footage/cuts

11. 3D support

If FCPX meets your needs, then great ... but I can assure you, it's not "lack of knowledge" that made me switch over to Adobe and drop all my Mac hardware.

Rob

I don't in any way want to profess that I am at your level of production(Rob or Monster). I understand from you guys that your requirements are advanced and moreover personalized. Maybe Adobe software is what is good for you. Maybe Apple is good for you???? I can not deny anyone of what is good for them or their opinions and I totally respect yours.

What you say about the fixes and the aftermarket stuff, I agree with but at 399 it doesn't matter. It would be nice if all this bits weren't necessary.

In any case, know this my advice may be useless for you, but it is not useless for others like me, and I assure you there are many out there. As for your applications, and anyone else's respectively, like I said in the past -

what ever works for you, that makes you money efficiently is your strategic business decision - do what you gotta do!

...and no one else can know your specific needs except you. Therefore, I respect your needs and respect mine as I am not lying I am simply again stating what works for me. This can in no way be useless when it has worked. In philosophy class - assuming I'm honest of course.

As for reconstructing the environment I couldn't agree more - it was sh*t. It didn't take me two weeks, it took me 3 days though - of not being able to work. That was a problem. But now I'm smooth sailing. Additionally, in the same way this reconstruction phase would sacrifice my time so would moving over to new software (regardless of weather I know it or not) the transition is always a b(*&tch....thats if I did it it would be in parallel. So I don't intend on jumping of the boat just yet because, again I'm smooth at the moment. Rendering times are at an all time low, and rainbow wheels are almost non existent.

FCPX 10.0.4 works for me. I've spent time and money on it and have worked out the kinks - for me! Furthermore, I will test out the new cs6 when its out...see what its like...and we shall see.....if I can do it in parallel when I have a lull in work maybe....something to check out future going. But I do think Apple will come out with more updates....they haven't even updated the "10ths number" yet.....:) respect to all always!!!!

I agree. We should not need to do all those trix and workarounds just to do basic editing. On decent machine we should be able to put FCP on highest gear, no Proxy, no Better performance, turning of many vital functions, such as waveform et.cetera. But as you say the last update is very promising

Update:

10.0.4 seems to have fixed all my reported issues with v.03 (titles rerendering, some plugins not working right, etc.). Seems pretty good so far in the short testing done. Went back to previous projetcs that did not retain rendering, and now after rerendering, they do keep after quitting, etc. Seems good and some plugin problems gone. Lookslike this is a good version.

Side note on world's biggest debate: been producing TV commericals for 40+ years. I was disappointed at FCPX when it first came out. But now I have come to prefer it to 7 and work around the limitations without much of any compromise. There are just too many good points in FCPX to go back to 7. Yes, have had to spend money on Ripple Training, etc. to get up to speed, but must say that I like this much better than 7 and am producing far better commercials because of the better features, interface, etc. Will be happy to see it improved. Been frustrated with bugs which have cost me time and money. But I would never go back. And I don't think CS6 is going to change my mind unless it incoporates many of the new ideas in FCPX (which it does not look like it will). Just one more old-timer pro that is finding FCPX well worth it and a valuable new tool for better creativity and cash flow.

so "montster" with the latests 10.04 version would you say its safe to say that FCPX is now living up to your expectations as a professional and full time video producer?