Final Cut Pro question

i want to make high def. blu ray dvd's in dvd studio pro or iDVD. you can only do that in final cut pro share and that is too cheap/easy. example: adobe cs5 is compatible to make blu ray high def. dvd's on encore. i believe that there can be a resolution to this problem. i need to work more professional for my business. i dont want to change from this software, for i worked adobe premiere cs2 and it was not good. i found final cut pro a lot better. now, i find better cs5.
thank you for giving up your time to read my post and i hope someone can help me out with this problem or something can fix this.

What are your export settings when you export the text? You could be uneccessarily adding compression to the image when you don't need it. Also, the computer display is never the best place to get an accurate view of your video. Try watching it on a monitor or TV, and see if the problem persists.
And yes, direct export to mpeg2 (m2v and aiff) is fine. To burn a data CD use a program like Roxio Toast or Tiger's own built in DVD burning software.

Similar Messages

A few final cut pro questions...

hey i was wondering if final cut pro 5.0 is compatible on leopard. if not is it compatible on mac OS X 10.4.9? and is final cut express 4 better then final cut pro HD(4.5). or should i buy final cut pro HD(4.5) and forget about FCE 4. leave your opinion about FCE 4 and FCP HD and if you know tell me about FCP 5.0 and leopard.

5.0 is not compatible with intel machines... 5.1 was the first version that did, and is no longer available, and wasn't free either. You need to upgrade to Studio 2 to run FCP on your machine.
FCP 4.5 (HD) also won't run on an intel mac...
FCE 4 will run on an intel Mac, however FCP HD is a ton more robust than FCE anything.
FCE might be all you need though. Depends on what you want to do... So what might that be? What format do you intend to edit? What sort of work is it etc... If you're a working professional, then there's no question FCS 2 is where you should be looking.
Jerry

Canon EOS 7-D/Workflow Final cut Pro questions.

Today i just upgraded my final cut pro from 5 to the latest 7.0.3, and im having trouble viewing my clips.
First off, im very confused.
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3249
i read this entire article and still cant view my clip in the timeline. Here's what im doing.
I plugged in my card into a card reader,
next i opened final cut pro, and i opened up log and transfer.
my clips are all there, and i can preview them all.
Step 3 is what confuses me.
3. In the Import Preferences window, select 'Canon DSLR' as your Source, and then select the Transcode to format of your choice (such as ProRes 422).
when i open up my settings/preferences in the log/transfer settings i cant seem to find "canon dslr, or how to make it my "source".
instead, i see AVCHD PLugin, P2 PLug in, MPEG2 Consumer Cameras, and Canon E1. i selected the Obvious Canon E1 (because thats the plug in you download) and when i added it to the queue it finished and i am still unable to see it in the right window. There's audio but the screen is white.
So the burning questions i have..
What am i doing wrong?
What do you use for your easy format or custom format?

First don't use Final Cut to import directly from the card. Use Disc Utility to make a new image of the card from your card reader onto a hard drive. Make a back up copy of this by dragging it to another drive if possible. Now if anything goes wrong you are secure. Open one of these disk images and log and transfer from them with FCP.
You do this by opening log and transfer window. Use the top left button in the window to point to the files. On the other side of the left pane at the top open preferences, select the Canon E1 but then double click the little arrows which should open another window and offer a selection of versions of ProRes, choose Apple ProRes or ProRes LT, anything higher is overkill. Select the files you want and add them to the import queue. They should start importing automatically. You should be able to see files appearing in logging bin progressively. Whilst the import is happening do not touch anything else in FCP, allow the whole import to finish before playing with them.

Why does my 4:3 miniDV video keep getting captured as 16:9? (Vidi/Final Cut Pro question)

This is partially related to Final Cut Studio, although not necessarily. I've been trying to back up dozens of my miniDV tapes on to my harddrive for several months now, racing against the clock as their video quality starts to degrade. Since Final Cut Pro started giving me problems with the timecode breaks, I started using a capture program called Vidi instead (v0.4.7) Everything was capturing well, considering, until just last week where several of my tapes, which were shot in 4:3, would capture as 16:9. That is, the video files were clearly stretched to a 16:9 aspect ratio and appeared distorted. Today I tried to go back to Final Cut (v6.0.6) to capture it the old way, and, lo and behold, the video was once again being stretched to 16:9.
A few things:
- I'm about as sure as I can be that these tapes were shot in 4:3. I've watched them several times on my TV and they are played back in 4:3, with the black bars on the left and right.
- I had actually captured video previously from one of these tapes a few years back and it recorded as a 4:3 video file, just as it should.
- I definitely have "4:3" checked off in Vidi when I capture the video. What's even more infuriating, is that BOTH Vidi and Final Cut show the video playing in its 4:3 aspect ration during apture. It's only when I check the captured file that it's been stretched to 16:9
- A tape I shot in 2008 captured perfectly with Vidi today - in it's 4:3 format. That seems to imply that it's not a software setting issue.
I'm starting to lose my mind with this, especially since I haven't found a single reference to this problem anywhere else. All I want is to get the raw DV data off of these tapes to work with at a future date, and I'd like it to be exactly as it was originally shot, not distorted. Maybe some bit of code on these tapes got messed up over time, resulting in capture software to think it was shot in 16:9? These tapes aren't anywhere near my oldest ones - they're from 2010 and 2011. Is there something obvious I'm missing when I capture these videos? If there's no other solution, is it possible to squeeze them back to 4:3? It might not look as good as if were captured in it's native format, but I'm out of ideas.

Not sure if it makes any difference for archiving purposes, but dv files (dv streams) are not generally recommended for use in fcp. .mov with the dv codec is how fcp captures SD video via firewire. Someone a few months ago claimed that .dv was fine with fcp, but I seem to remember that audio will always need to be rendered and since I always use fcp for capture of DV material, it's not an issue for me.
You can use compressor to both convert to .mov with the dv codec and reset the anamorphic flag. Not sure if there will be any loss of quality, so it might be worth testing this. Perhaps someone with more knowledge will speak up regarding this or alternative methods of converting .dv to .mov
What problems are you having capturing from within fcp? Shouldn't be a problem. I find that setting the easy setup correctly is crucial for successful capturing. Even if all the individual elements that seem to compose the easy set up are correct, there can still be problems. Perhaps you might want to start a new thread regarding your capture problems and we can see if we can solve the problem.

PC to Final Cut Pro Questions

Hi,
I am a long time PC user and recently purchased a MacBook Pro and love it. It has a dual core 2.5 processor and 4 gigs of ram. I am thinking of getting FCP and was wondering a few things about it. How is the rendering time? How does it handle HDV files? Is there a lot rendering with HDV files? How are the filters, especially does it have an old movie filter? How is the slow motion? Can you create a .m2v file from the timeline to import in to Adobe Encore to create a Blu-Ray disc for HD delivery? When you purchase a copy of FCP, how many machines can you put it on?
Thank you,
Dwayne Gitter

Try not to over use the effects that came with Final Cut that much, there are some good but be carefull and not over use them, I told you this based on my own experiences haha and also if you make something musical there´s the cool multiclip that works like a swither on TV, I just found it and I love it.
I was working also with a PC editing with Sony Vegas and I can tell you that even that is faster and manage sound a little better, well you have soundtrack so it doesn´t matter, you will notice the improvement of using Final Cut. At least I did it, it was like cutting with a rounded not sharp enough sissors and then changging to a sharp, finness sissors.
Ok, you get the point, hehe, The thing is that yes, you should buy Final Cut but don´t relay that much on the effects. Try to do everthing while filming or videotapping not becuse they are bad but becuse it looks better.

Ram and Final Cut Pro Questions...

Ok, so I have a 2.66 Mac Pro with 2GB of RAM. I am now starting to work with HD content, so I just got 2 more GB of RAM from OWC. But I've been reading that I should probably have more than 4GB of RAM to work with HD content. I have the ATI card on the Mac Pro btw.
I just want peoples' opinion on this. Is 4GB enough? If not, I get confused about the Ram's performance on the Mac Pro. Don't I have to get to 8GB of Ram in order to get the RAM to act quickly? I'm not sure how all that works, but I just remember reading on here ram should be doubled for its bandwidth to reach max potential. Does that mean 6GB of RAM will be fine? Or does it have to be 2, 4, 8, 16 GB of RAM for it to be the fastest it can be? Does it slow it down if I use 6GB of RAM?
I can probably afford 2 more GB of RAM, but I don't want to put 6 in my system if it actually slows it down. Thanks for your help!

Well, the system came with 4 X 512MB of Ram, so I'm
getting 2 x 1GB of Ram in the mail. That'll give me
6 DIMMS. I could've sworn that I had to match DIMMS
top to bottom for it to work. But you're saying to
put 4 DIMMS to fill up the top tray and then just
place the remaining 2 DIMMS on the bottom tray? Am I
understanding that correctly?
Yes. Each riser board has two pairs of slots, numbered 0 through 3. You MUST match 0 and 1 with the same type and size of RAM if you fill those slots on a board, and you MUST match 2 and 3. Otherwise, you can put whatever pairs you want on whatever boards.
Performance-wise, though, you get the best results by:
1) Filling both RAM boards' 0 and 1 slots with the same size and type of RAM. Same with 2 and 3 on both boards.
2) Placing dual rank (usually 1GB or higher capacity) RAM in 0 and 1 on both boards, as those are the slots that are usually hit first, and dual rank RAM is faster.
If you can afford it, you might consider getting an additional 2x1GB pair of the same brand you already have. Then, you could put those 4 modules in the 0 and 1 slots on each board and the 512 modules in 2 and 3. This will put your faster dual-rank RAM in the lower numbered slots, and will make sure that module sizes are matched across boards, which will maximize performance.
Also, I tend to have a lot of software open when I
edit. Soundtrack, Motion, Livetype, FCP, soon CS3
and other random software is usually open when I edit
(like iChat and Mail). Will 4GB still be enough you
think? I didn't mention all that in my first post,
so I apologize.
If you're running all of that, you might well find that extra RAM is helpful, particularly if you're processing in the background. Even if not, switching between applications will be smoother and faster with more RAM. This is another good reason to think about getting another 2x1GB pair.
Also, this whole Ram bandwidth thing has me confused.
If I do end up getting 6GB of Ram (4 x 1GB and 4 X
512MB)does that slow down my Ram? Does the fact
that I have 2 different types of DIMMS slow down my
Ram? It's all so confusing
A tiny little bit that you may not notice, and no.
Right now you have 4x512MB in your 0 and 1 slots. This is pretty optimal for a setup of 512 MB modules, because having the same type of RAM paired across boards in the same numbered slots increases your memory performance.
If you add 2x1GB in the 2 and 3 slots on one board, your existing memory (the original 4x512MB modules) will still be able to transfer data at just as high a rate as before. The 2x1GB modules in 2 and 3 will be slower because they're not paired with another 2x1GB pair on the other board, but that will only affect accesses to the data stored in those modules, which the system will tend to use last.
What will slow down somewhat is that each request the CPU makes to transfer data from your existing 4x512MB RAM will take a bit longer to start because you have put modules in the 2 and 3 slots on one of the boards. Once it gets going, the transfer will happen at just as high a rate, but the setup time is longer by a small amount.
Chances are, the performance improvement you'll see with the extra RAM running all those apps will totally overwhelm any such slowdown. Note that I don't know of anyone who's benchmarked a real impact of that, all the discussions I've seen about such a slowdown are just theory.
However: those 1 GB modules in 2 and 3 will operate at a slower rate than they could because you don't have another 1 GB pair on the other board matched up with them. That's why I suggested getting a 2nd pair of 1 GB modules for the other board.
Finally, if you do get 4x1GB, swapping those 1 GB modules into the 0 and 1 slots will ensure that they get used first, and since most 1GB modules are substantially faster than the 512 MB modules, you'll want that for best performance. However, unless you get a couple of additional 1 GB modules to fill out the set of four, I would not recommend swapping the 512 MB modules into different slots. The fact that you have a matched set of 4x512 in slots 0 and 1 is a big speed benefit if you don't get a matched 4x1GB set for your expansion.
I hope that I haven't confused the situation...
-- Mark
4-core 3 GHz Mac Pro w/ 4.5 TB HDD and 10 GB RAM, 17 Macbook Pro 2.16 GHz

A Case Study Question in the Use of Stills with Final Cut Pro

Believe it or not, for the last week I have been reading endlessly about pixels, resolution, aspect ratio, Photoshop resizing, the bloody battle over the usefulness of the term "dpi" in video discussions, and generally about what one should do in order to use still images in a film edited in Final Cut Pro. And yet, though I have a PhD from an Ivy League university, and can understand a lot of things, I am sorry to say I am still at a loss.
Much of the discussions of photos on forums like this one are either quite technical or broadly philosophical. But my questions are completely practical and specific. I am not a photographer or a printer, nor am I an experienced editor. I am just a fairly smart person trying to use photos in his film. So I am going to ask some specific questions and hope for specific answers, without any philosophical waffling or technical mumbo jumbo.
I have one of those HP all in one printer/fax/scanner machines. I am told this device, while not fancy, is perfectly adequate to the task. Some of my photos I scan with this device from prints. Some of them I get from other people. (I have stopped downloading photos from the web, as the quality is nearly always poor.) I have Photoshop Essentials (not Photoshop). I am making a 90-minute HDV documentary, 16x9. The doc is mostly HDV footage with a still here and there. I want to be able to move on the photos (zoom, pan, etc.). I want, obviously, for them to look good. My sense is that the work flow is: (a) scan the photo (or obtain from some source as a digital file); alter the photo in some way in Photoshop; and (b) import the photo into your FCP project.
Question #1: If I have a 6x8 print, what settings should I scan it in with -- is it possible there really is no difference between scanning in it at 72dpi and 300dpi? Is it really all about the dimensions of the image? Isn't a photo whose dimensions are enlarged in Photoshop to make it available for panning and zooming in my sequence going to look fuzzier and more pixelated if it was originally scanned at 72dpi than at 300dpi? Also: Does it matter if I save it as a jpeg or tiff? Bottom line: What settings do I use in my scanning software when I scan a photo for this purpose?
Question #2: Once I have the image file on my hard drive, I suppose I now have to load it into Photoshop Elements and do something to it. What is it exactly I am using this program for? I'm going to take a wild guess. I use PS Elements to (1) crop the photo so that it has a 16x9 aspect ratio, and (2) resize it so that I can do pans and other Ken Burnsy moves on it in FCP. Bottom line: What exactly do I do in PSE to the photo and what settings do I use to both (a) make it available for moves and (b) not injure the quality of the photo by increasing its dimensions?
(In passing, I will say that I have done experiments that show that if I increase a photo's dimensions to, say, 4000 pixels by 2000 pixels, the photo's quality definitely and obviously suffers. I don't understand how a picture can be increased in size without losing sharpness. So, what am I doing wrong? Is this a function of it having been scanned in improperly to begin with?)
Question #3: If I am obtaining a photo from an outside source -- say, a professional photographer -- what are the specifications I ask for in both a hard print and a photo file? If the former, what dimensions do I ask for? If the latter, do I specify resolution and dimensions and file type?
These are my questions. At this point, I really don't want to know WHY any of this is the way it is. I just want someone to say: "Do this; do this; and then do this."
Thank you very much.

Studio X is absolutely correct; while DPI has no meaning in the video world, it often has significant meaning in scanning (and, of course, printing). If your scanning program only allows image size adjustments in DPI, then you'll have to adapt to that ... keeping in mind that the scanner's DPI setting directly relates to pixel resolution. And it is pixel resolution (not DPI) that will make all the difference in the world for images used in video. You can test this yourself by scanning an image at 1000 x 1200 @ 72 DPI and again at 1000 x 1200 at 300 DPI. They will look identical on TV or projection as long as the pixel resolution remains the same.
As an example, my Epson scanning software allows me to adjust image size by DPI or pixel resolution. Wanting to maintain the correct aspect ratio for the image area that I'm scanning, I adjust the DPI setting which in turn adjusts the pixel resolution automatically. But it doesn't work the other way around; if I adjust the pixel resolution settings manually, the DPI setting does not change. Your software may vary.
As Jim Cookman suggested, a scan setting of 300 DPI works well for most images ranging from 3 x 5 to 4 x 6 (typical snapshot size) in a DV Sequence. I may scan smaller images at 400 or 600 DPI and larger images (8 x 10 and up) at 150 DPI. Other size images fall in between those numbers. But I'm constantly watching the pixel resolution numbers to make sure I'm getting what I'll need to support the animation I intend to apply to the images once in FCP. Also bear in mind that I don't always scan the entire image. I only scan the area of an image that I intend to use in my program.
So the answer is that it all depends on your scanner's software and how far you plan to push into an image once in FCP. Do a few experiments ... you're a bright fellow so it shouldn't take long for you to find the formula that suits your purposes.
I haven't edited an HD Sequence using images yet, so I cannot offer definitive pixel resolutions for you there.
On to your specific questions:
1. See above. There is no one correct answer It all depends on what you intend to do with the image once it's in FCP. If you only plan to push in about 10%, you won't need much higher resolution than the equivalent of your FCP Sequence resolution. If you plan to push in further, you'll need a higher resolution to support that move.
2. I've been doing these for many years (SD Sequences only) and I've never loaded them into Photoshop first. I import the entire folder into FCP and drop it on the Timeline so I can see what the images look like on TV; unless your program is for CD-ROM or web delivery, that's where it counts. When you place them on the Timeline, FCP will automatically scale to your Sequence settings and pixel aspect ratio. If I see that some of them need adjustment using an external editor such as Photoshop, then and only then do I use that program. And by the way, if you have a vertical image and a 16 x 9 aspect ratio in FCP, how do you propose to crop it to fit? Perhaps you meant another term instead of "crop."
3. If it's a print, it won't matter what size they supply because you'll control the image size when scanning. If it's a file ... once again, the size (pixel resolution) depends on what you intend to do with the image once in FCP.
I really don't want to know WHY any of this is the way it is. I just want someone to say: "Do this; do this; and then do this."<<</div>
With that attitude, how did you ever earn a PhD from an Ivy League university? But if that is truly all you want, you might consider hiring an experienced editor to do it for you.
-DH

2 Questions about final cut pro 5

My first question is quite simple, I know that previously final cut pro could only use up to 2.5GBs of memory, now I'm just a bit curious if it can use more since leopard is a 64-bit OS. Right now I'm using Final Cut Studio 1. I'm just asking this question since I intend to get an additional 4GB of ram (Right now I only have 2GB) I'm going to get Muskin's MacPro memory. I generally run my system down to about 200MB of free memory and sometimes down to 10MB when I'm using photoshop in conjunction to FCP. What does everyone think about getting an additional 4GB?
Thanks for the answers.
Okay, to not make two posts I'm give me final question/Problem. Ever since I've upgraded to Leapord I noticed that the playback quality in the canvas and viewer is poor. There is bad gamma. What I mean by that is that i'm getting extremes in color, I have areas that look normal followed by areas of over saturated color. It's more on the over saturated side though. Besides that the play back quality is poor, even though my sequence settings are at "Best" for video processing. I also seem to get jagged lines on things like railings, people's shoulders, and on other edges. My picture quality is grainy, however there are no artifacts. Even on the FX transistions I get the jagged lines on edges of oh say page peels and what not.
Now when using DVD player or watching my MPEG2's on DVD Studio, they play poorly too. The image is clear however I get the horizontal lines when there is motion. Now when I put one of my DVD's in my DVD player (not computer) the problem goes away and everything looks fine. This is less of a problem (the horizontal lines), but I don't understand the poor playback quality.
The video looks fine on my external NTSC video monitor.
I have the GeForce 7300 graphics card, with the 24" samsung 245BW. I upgraded to 10.5 on a clean install.
Thanks a lot everyone!!

Thanks for my memory question!
However I'm still getting poor looking footage. Even when I open up my source clips and play them they look poor in quality. I'm getting the horizontal lines on everything that moves and corners are not sharp, they look distorted and jagged. I never had this problem before I'm not sure whats the cause or the solution. Even the footage from Final Cut Studio's tutorial looks bad (grainy, strange contrast, jagged corners and lots of horizontal lines). However the edges on my footage look a little more jagged. I think i mentioned it already but the FX transitions that are page peels, cube spins...etc give me jagged edges too.
I removed flip4mac and all other non-apple codecs too.
ugh i hate computers sometimes
-Tom

Osx10.9 & final cut pro 7 & motion 4 question

Mac now for the new version of osx10.9, like final cut pro 7 and motion 4 reactions are not os10.8.7 so smooth, motion 4 in os10.8.7 archiving project now osx10.9 Versions an open crashes
Would like to ask these questions can improve the look ~ Thank you!

Yes.
No.
Maybe.
What format? What filters?
Generally, I do not think using the roundtrip feature is a good idea if you are doing filters. Apply your filters and render. Export the rendered footage as self-contained movies to Motion. Or do you keying and then apply your filters.
bogiesan

Question RE: Final Cut Pro X Software

Hello,
This is a general question regarding the software program Final Cut Pro X. I am thinking about purchasing the software. I own multiple mac computers all using the same Apple ID. If I purchase the Final Cut Pro X software once, am I allowed to install it on the other computers if I buy it on one of them?
Thank you in advance for any help.

YYou can install it on as many computers as you own and control.

Recently purchased a Macbook Pro with screen of retina of 13,3 inches. My question is, can I install the new Final Cut Pro X , is capable of withstanding the app? Or that Final Cut is convenient to install?

Recently purchased a Macbook Pro with screen of retina of 13,3 inches. My question is, can I install the new Final Cut Pro X , is capable of withstanding the app? Or that Final Cut is convenient to install?

Generally any Mac made since 2009 can handle FCP X.
Your small screen is not ideal unless you are young and have good vision.
However, you needn't ask whether or not your computer is suitable as you can find out yourself by downloading the free 30 day trial.
http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/trial/
In addition, to get you up to speed with FCP X, you can also watch 2 hours of free video tutorials here
http://www.izzyvideo.com/final-cut-pro-x-tutorial/

Final Cut Pro Compatability with OS 10.4 Tiger - Easy Question

Right now I am cutting a feature film on Final Cut Pro 4.5 HD, OS Panther (10.3.9). As soon as I'm done with this project, I'd like to upgrade to OS 10.4 because I will be cutting a new feature in HDV (24p footage using HDVxDV to digitize and convert to DVCPRO HD).
My question is this...does Final Cuto Pro 4.5 work in OS 10.4? Or do I HAVE TO get the Final Cut Pro 5 upgrade in order for FCP to work in Tiger?
Thanks for the help.
PowerMac G5, 2gHz, 2GB RAM Mac OS X (10.3.9) 500 GB G-RAID x4, Canopus ADVC-110, Sony DSR-45
G5 Mac OS X (10.3.9)

I switched because I wanted to use the MultiCam, plus for the integration with Shake (which I use extensively) and in the bigger picture, I wanted Motion 2 over Motion 1, so it made sense to upgrade to Final Cut Studio.
But if you're looking for any BIG changes in the user interface or effects, etc, don't mess with your smooth functioning system. FCP 5 introduced a new RT system that causes interruptions in playback during shuttling when the mouse is moved and from general anecdotes is just not as smooth as in prior revs.
For me, I'm happy I upgraded, but if it doesn't bring you any features you're looking for, you should probably stay with the system you're happy with.
Patrick

Final Cut Pro X question

FCPX, bad news for Apple, good news for Avid and Adobe?
Can some one in the film/television industry provide any information on if FCPX is being used in Post Houses/Facilities or Studios? (I can't imagine it is).
I keep hearing that Final Cut Pro is slowly being discarded (because there are no more updates for FCP 7 and FCPX seems to lack the "Pro") and Avid and Premiere are replacing it. A lot of films schools are not even teaching Final Cut Pro anymore.

parker612 wrote:
It is already making adobe re-think their event handling... Trust me, in 5 years all the NLEs will have event handling a la FCPx.
Can you explain why all NLEs will have event handling like FCPX?
Truth be told = I CANT...
As I started using FCPx I was NOT capable of understanding how fantastic the eventlibrary is.
Because I had never thought such possible.
And you, obviously coming from ordinary NLEs' way of handling media, would also not be able to understand. Some things HAVE to be experienced. NOT TOLD. And the event lib. is just like that. (Please dont understand this as rude... Not at all meant like that)
Someone (Professional) who says "OK, NOW I am REALLY going to give FCPx a shot... Would still need a few weeks of heavy duty with the event lib. before finally understanding WHY there is absolutely NO way of going back after having understood it. So a few phrases of mine would not be able to explain it.
parker612 wrote:
Another question, what do you use FCPX for (personal projects, projects for clients, etc.) and what type of projects do you typically work on (short films, commercials, features, music videos, docs, etc.)?
I work on Films, Music-Videos, Image Campaigns, docs.etc and it is one of my primary sources of income.
I actually think FCPx is fantastic for films. Or should I say anything with a strict "plan"... To me sorting my sources is EVERYTHING.... (Cannot stress that enough) --- And there again here the event library comes into play(Key-wording, "Favorizing", Compositing. Simply amazing. I would say that editing in FCPx is great and very intuitive... But 95% of FCPx's greatness comes from its event library. Trim, slide, roll whatever you wanna call it.. Can be done in all editors. But where the real speed-increase lies... Is within HOW FAST can you get to your source material and PUT it into context.. Event Library is KING... Undisputed ;-)
And THAT is why I boldly sate that in 5 years any NLE without an Event Library a la FCPx is not going to be able to survive !

Final Cut Pro HD 4.5 upgrade questions...

a friend of mine has Final Cut Pro HD 4.5 and he has resisted upgrading to tiger (he is still on 10.3) because he thinks he will have to upgrade FCP as well. does FCP HD 4.5 NOT work with tiger? is my friend wrong? will it work fine in tiger?
i dont use it, but it seems to me that it should still work, just like all other programs should when you upgrade your OS. My friend is on a G5 tower... with 1GB ram... not sure about the speed, but i think its enough to not be an issue...
thanks...

He might want a touch more RAM to be running Tiger... it uses more leaving less for the Apps, but there's many a user running FCP 4.5 on Tiger.
That said, the unversal crossgrade program is over in about 3 weeks, so it would be HIGHLY recommended by any that he take advantage of this. Depending on the software he has, the upgrade to 5.1 STUDIO could only cost him 99 bucks... 199 at the most. That's a lot of improved software he could be running on Tiger.
Jerry

Question about Final Cut Pro X and miniDV's

Hi,
I'm thinking in buying Final Cut Pro X and use it to import and edit many hours of footage that I have on miniDV's tapes.
I've heard that to work with miniDV's, Final Cut Pro X is not great, especially regarding timecode, etc. True?
Any thoughts and advises? Many thanks!

My experience is if you're shooting SD then you shouldn't have a problem unless you are trying to load a full hour. When I tried that, the computer went crazy and loaded the video as thousands of clips just a few frames long.
That was supposed to be for a multicam shoot. I went back to FCP 7 where I've never had a single problem after at least 80 multicam projects with as many as eight cameras.
I'll have to try it again in FCP X now that there have been two updates since my last try.
I've also used HDV mini DV tapes shot with a Canon HV40. The video looked great in FCP X and I had no problem with clips that were 2-3 minutes long.
I did not load my HDV clips as ProRes in FCP X because, when I did try it, they looked like total crap. I was afraid my finished exported video would also look like that.

Final Cut Pro question

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for