What iMac Pro tells us about MP 7,1

[v3rlon]

If they use Standard, I don't really care if it ships with an AMD VEGA, enen though I


I got into a Back and Forth with someone on this forum just today about this same fact the iMac Pro seems to be an ODD DUCK IMHO. If you have an enclosed system, like an iMac, NO PCI-E, NO NVIDIA, NO CUDA, no way to use in a a machine room with FIBRE or something similar, then Apple has to be designing it for their Closed software environment.. Which for Media is Final Cut Pro X(BLAH!) and Logic Pro X(BLAH! BLAH!).. Both of these Apps don't work in a Pro Environment. I share a building with a Pro Audio studio.. All Cubase and ProTools and our studio AVID, PPro, Blackmagic Resolve and Autodesk Flame.. No one in our whole building touches any of the Apple Pro offerings anymore.. I mean they might be a great place to cut your teeth to learn the basics, but they can't do commercial, broadcast or tv/film level work. Not saying someone couldn't do it as a one off thing, but in a pro environment, day in and day out, with multiple clients and multiple suites and bays, it doesn't work.

So I feel like the iMac Pro is better suited for Software, VR and Game developers... And maybe some small one person media shops..

No one in your whole building? Well that is some serious sample size there. Focus, Saved by Grace, and other features use FCPX. They must be in another building.

Here is a list of professional Logic Pro users (http://equipboard.com/items/apple-logic-pro-x). Probably just down the block from you.

Other people are still just people. We've all had a bad experience with some software/hardware/company and refuse to do business with them. Some of us have different workflows.

 

[William Payne]

You can connect thunderbolt to fibre channel. That is not new.

 

[jjjoseph]

No one in your whole building? Well that is some serious sample size there. Focus, Saved by Grace, and other features use FCPX. They must be in another building.

Here is a list of professional Logic Pro users (http://equipboard.com/items/apple-logic-pro-x). Probably just down the block from you.

Other people are still just people. We've all had a bad experience with some software/hardware/company and refuse to do business with them. Some of us have different workflows.

I have nothing against Logic it was great when Apple first took it over, had a great future.. But Apple will slowly kill it like all their pro Apps. Also a lot of composers I work with still use Logic for certain things, but use Cubase or ProTools for the finishing.. And a lot of small studios, home studios, Logic Makes the most sense. The commercial Sound Production and design mixing and recording studios in our building, All ProTools and Cubase no Logic.

As for Final Cut Pro X? It is still a joke. We use AVID, Adobe CC/Premiere, Autodesk Flame, BlackMagic Resolve, we have 20 Commercial Editing and Finishing suites all Fibre connected to a central media sever... Final Cut Pro X will never work with our workflow. It is not allowed by any freelancers in our studio and it is not at a Pro enough Level for anyone to use on any commercial projects we work on... We do have a few licenses of Final Cut Pro X for people that bring us in projects, and we spend hours getting the edits over to AVID or Premiere. It is just not pro enough for us. I am not saying you can't make stuff with Final Cut Pro X, that is not what I'm saying, I'm saying just drop the word "Pro" at the end. Apple needs to stop pretending they are competing with real professional workflows, because they are not. They have't been competitive since they had SHAKE and Final Cut Pro in their software arsenal, like 2006 era... Calling the new Final Cut Pro X, PRO is confusing to the market.

 

[JesterJJZ]

They should change FCPX to iMovie Pro and release the real FCP8, which I'm sure they have locked away somewhere.

 

[jjjoseph]

They should change FCPX to iMovie Pro and release the real FCP8, which I'm sure they have locked away somewhere.

The rumor was that they had done a full 64bit recompile of Final Cut Pro, and someone at Apple, I think Jobs, he was still making decisions at the time, said it wasn't different enough.. And they wanted to re-invent how you edit. Not for the better, just to be out of left field, just for the sake of being different, so they could really hammer in their message of being different, Edit Different..... That is what they wanted to do, and they did it, they are different. It is different.. Different.. The result was a mass exodus away from Final Cut Pro X to Premiere..

Edit Different.. Think Different.. Be Different...
It is just differnet.

everyone .. "Hey but I have clients that rely on me getting a job done on time."
apple.. "get different Clients"

different. different. different.

 

[Jaho101]

The rumor was that they had done a full 64bit recompile of Final Cut Pro, and someone at Apple, I think Jobs, he was still making decisions at the time, said it wasn't different enough.. And they wanted to re-invent how you edit. Not for the better, just to be out of left field, just for the sake of being different, so they could really hammer in their message of being different, Edit Different..... That is what they wanted to do, and they did it, they are different. It is different.. Different.. The result was a mass exodus away from Final Cut Pro X to Premiere..

Edit Different.. Think Different.. Be Different...
It is just differnet.

everyone .. "Hey but I have clients that rely on me getting a job done on time."
apple.. "get different Clients"

different. different. different.

FCP X's lead designer was the same guy that invented Premiere and Final Cut 7, it was based on what he thought the future of editing would be. FCP X also ended up being way more profitable for Apple than 7 ever was, and it's extremely popular among independent/non-studio users. It's hard to judge the true value/capability of a program based on pro workflows, don't forget that AVID is still the industry standard in Hollywood, and it's insane how antiquated and obsolete most of its design is.

 

[jjjoseph]

FCP X's lead designer was the same guy that invented Premiere and Final Cut 7, it was based on what he thought the future of editing would be. FCP X also ended up being way more profitable for Apple than 7 ever was, and it's extremely popular among independent/non-studio users. It's hard to judge the true value/capability of a program based on pro workflows, don't forget that AVID is still the industry standard in Hollywood, and it's insane how antiquated and obsolete most of its design is.

Yeah, AVID is screwed up in many ways, don't get me started there.. We are in the middle of a 3 hour work around because of a current AVID glitch on 40 spots... But yes FCP X is profitable because Final Cut Pro was what $999? Now Final Cut Pro X is $299? That is why it is more profitable. People will just grab a copy when they buy a computer. I would argue Premiere is more popular among indies, I grade about 5 indies a year, all have been on Premiere. I had one indie that was cut on Final Cut Pro X in the past 4 years, and it was a mess to finish that film....

 

[JesterJJZ]

I've yet to have anyone hand over a FCPX project to me, I still get FCP7 projects regularly, believe it of not, a TON of people and post houses are still using it. I've moved on to Premiere for much of my work, but some HD only stuff I still sometimes cut in FCP7 for ease of use.

 

[shaunp]

It should be a similar spec to HP Z, etc as that is really what it is competing with, not iMac Pro. I think it will be a similar spec to what you have said, possibly with more PCie slots.

 

[goMac]

The rumor was that they had done a full 64bit recompile of Final Cut Pro, and someone at Apple, I think Jobs, he was still making decisions at the time, said it wasn't different enough..

Don't know who's spreading that rumor, but that's wishful thinking.

There were a lot of problems, chiefly that FCP from top to bottom was built on Carbon and QuickTime, neither of which survived to 64 bit. Apple didn't even start to offer reasonable replacements for those until 10.7 (Apple back ported some of the stuff they needed to 10.6.7.)

Maybe someone was playing with it during the brief amount of time that 10.5 beta included 64 bit Carbon, but there was no way Apple could have ever shipped just a 64 bit rebuild of FCP7.

10.6 didn't even include a Quicktime replacement that could edit video. QuickTime X couldn't edit video. It was a huge joke at the time.

 

[jjjoseph]

Don't know who's spreading that rumor, but that's wishful thinking.

There were a lot of problems, chiefly that FCP from top to bottom was built on Carbon and QuickTime, neither of which survived to 64 bit. Apple didn't even start to offer reasonable replacements for those until 10.7 (Apple back ported some of the stuff they needed to 10.6.7.)

Maybe someone was playing with it during the brief amount of time that 10.5 beta included 64 bit Carbon, but there was no way Apple could have ever shipped just a 64 bit rebuild of FCP7.

10.6 didn't even include a Quicktime replacement that could edit video. QuickTime X couldn't edit video. It was a huge joke at the time.

Even if you don't believe it.. It has been talked about.. I tend to believe this rumor since there really isn't any reason for it not to be true... other than peoples hatred of Final Cut Pro X was so extreme they made it up?

Anyway if you haven't read it already.. worth a gander.

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/3...bit-final-cut-pro-8-to-build-final-cut-pro-x/

https://www.cultofmac.com/132446/ap...ed-a-64-bit-version-of-final-cut-pro-8-rumor/

 

[goMac]

Even if you don't believe it.. It has been talked about.. I tend to believe this rumor since there really isn't any reason for it not to be true... other than peoples hatred of Final Cut Pro X was so extreme they made it up?

Anyway if you haven't read it already.. worth a gander.

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/3...bit-final-cut-pro-8-to-build-final-cut-pro-x/

https://www.cultofmac.com/132446/ap...ed-a-64-bit-version-of-final-cut-pro-8-rumor/

So the clarifying quote is:

Just repeating rumors I had heard multiple times. I had been told many times that there were efforts to bring 64 bit to the type of interface used in FCP7.

Which matches what I said. During the 10.5 beta when 64 bit Carbon and QuickTime existed they were probably working on it, but as soon as 64 bit Carbon and QuickTime died (before the 10.5 public release), 64 bit FCP7 died too.

There was never a chance of it being publicly released because the technology they needed to port never ended up shipping to the public.

There is no way a 64 bit FCP8 could have been completed because the tools Apple needed didn't even exist in a public OS release until 10.7. Like I said, building FCP8 on QuickTime X would have been impossible. The timeline just doesn't add up.

Even his clarification of "FCP7 type of interface for 64 bit" is pretty loaded. That could still mean a rewrite with a similar interface, not a straight port. And not even the same feature set.

 

[pat500000]

By reading some previous posts in regards to FCPX, I wonder if it makes a huge impact on MP's direction if they did jump in with Apple.

 

[JoeG4]

What if I don't wanna use a 5k 16:9 screen. What if I wanna use a 21:9 screen, or 2 screens, or no screens? What if I want to have 4 gtx titans? What if I want to load it up with storage, whatever the speed?

What if I don't want to pay $700 for a CPU and $400 for ECC ram but I want to use any ole' PCI-E video card?

 

[flat five]

What if I don't wanna use a 5k 16:9 screen. What if I wanna use a 21:9 screen, or 2 screens, or no screens? What if I want to have 4 gtx titans? What if I want to load it up with storage, whatever the speed?

What if I don't want to pay $700 for a CPU and $400 for ECC ram but I want to use any ole' PCI-E video card?

you should probably buy iMac Pro.. seems like it will work well for you.

 

[v3rlon]

I recall being at a presentation for Newtek's SpeedEdit. They guy opened up with, "How many of you here have edited film before?" About half the people present raised their hands. So he followed with, "How many of you liked it?" There were no hands left (about 100 film editors present. He went on to point out how the digital editors were made to be like film editors because that is what everyone knew. Then they stayed like that because why change it?

Digital editing offers many advantages. SpeedEdit (and FCPX), were designed to take advantage of it. Certainly, Apple dropped the ball with no multicam or XML, but those items were addressed long ago. I have seen in multiple cases where 'pro' users complained about how software was suddenly cheaper. 'I paid $1000 for this, so no one will take it seriously if it is only $300.' That is nonsense. Customers like results. They do not care how you got them. How many times have you been asked to do something that blatantly violates copyright, leading to a long patient conversation about why they cannot do that?

If you learn FCPX, it can do a lot. What does 'not pro enough' even mean? The checks I cashed using it all cleared. That's pro enough for me. Can I get it done faster and easier? Can I lower my expenses? Can I avoid worrying if the Adobe login server goes down or get hacked, leaving me unable to use my tools or my information exposed?

Now if FCPX CAN'T do something, or if it is too slow for reasons other than the nut behind the keyboard, then I have issues. Normally, when something takes a long time, I find there is a faster way I should have been doing it in the first place.