|
|
All the news now and in your digital future
FCP 7: Motion 4 : Color 1.5 ect :-)))
Posted by paurray
|
Re: FCP 7: Motion 4 : Color 1.5 ect :-))) July 23, 2009 06:51PM |
I'd say that it doesn't work on PowerPC (or 68020 
) Macs because it has been re-written, so compiling it for older chips is no longer possible.
___________________________________________________
Alexandre Gollner,
Editor, Zone 2-North West, London
alex4d on twitter, facebook, .wordpress.com + .com
) Macs because it has been re-written, so compiling it for older chips is no longer possible.___________________________________________________
Alexandre Gollner,
Editor, Zone 2-North West, London
alex4d on twitter, facebook, .wordpress.com + .com
|
Re: FCP 7: Motion 4 : Color 1.5 ect :-))) July 23, 2009 06:57PM |
That's almost certainly untrue, for several reasons.
For starters, non-trivial applications are almost never rewritten. There's just no need. Refactored, sure, but rewritten? That's a ton of effort for precious little gain.
Second, Final Cut works. The only motivation to rewrite something entirely is when you're moving to a new architecture and you have to (Mac OS X doesn't have that problem; it's architecture-agnostic in most respects) or when there are problems with the original application that can't be fixed otherwise.
Finally, and most significantly, you'd really have to go out of your way to write a Mac OS X application that can't be compiled for PowerPC. The current version of the operating system is entirely universal; every API and framework is available in both PowerPC and Intel versions, on every system in the world. There's just not much you can do on a Mac that isn't fully cross-architecture. Sure, you can go in and do low-level architecture-specific programming, but there's precious little need to.
On the other hand, if you ship both PowerPC and Intel versions of an application, you have to QA both the PowerPC and Intel versions. PowerPC, as an architecture, is effectively dead; Apple will not make or ship any more PowerPC systems, and I forget the numbers but some vast majority of Mac users are on Intel systems now. So while the application could be compiled and run on PowerPC just fine, it makes perfect sense for Apple to save time and effort by dropping the QA for PowerPC.
For starters, non-trivial applications are almost never rewritten. There's just no need. Refactored, sure, but rewritten? That's a ton of effort for precious little gain.
Second, Final Cut works. The only motivation to rewrite something entirely is when you're moving to a new architecture and you have to (Mac OS X doesn't have that problem; it's architecture-agnostic in most respects) or when there are problems with the original application that can't be fixed otherwise.
Finally, and most significantly, you'd really have to go out of your way to write a Mac OS X application that can't be compiled for PowerPC. The current version of the operating system is entirely universal; every API and framework is available in both PowerPC and Intel versions, on every system in the world. There's just not much you can do on a Mac that isn't fully cross-architecture. Sure, you can go in and do low-level architecture-specific programming, but there's precious little need to.
On the other hand, if you ship both PowerPC and Intel versions of an application, you have to QA both the PowerPC and Intel versions. PowerPC, as an architecture, is effectively dead; Apple will not make or ship any more PowerPC systems, and I forget the numbers but some vast majority of Mac users are on Intel systems now. So while the application could be compiled and run on PowerPC just fine, it makes perfect sense for Apple to save time and effort by dropping the QA for PowerPC.
|
Re: FCP 7: Motion 4 : Color 1.5 ect :-))) July 23, 2009 07:22PM |
Michael Horton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lets try and keep this thread a bit on topic as
> much as we can. Its a good one and I don't want to
> see it go off the map into another country.
Sorry if I mapped it out of the country.
But here even if out of topic the link back to the country for render notification:
[www.lafcpug.org]
Andreas
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lets try and keep this thread a bit on topic as
> much as we can. Its a good one and I don't want to
> see it go off the map into another country.
Sorry if I mapped it out of the country.
But here even if out of topic the link back to the country for render notification:
[www.lafcpug.org]
Andreas
|
Re: New Final Cut Studio released July 23, 2009 08:40PM |
Hi, all --
Well, this one was an unexpected surprise. Our friends Steve Martin & Kevin Monahan sure can keep a secret!
And while there are some nice features being added (and a very reasonable upgrade price, to boot) ... after 2+ YEARS, I really thought they could hit this one out of the park.
Though compared to what arguably needed to be done with the app, it feels more like just a base hit.
In fact, my original Amazon review of FCS2 may still be eerily apropos. [Though I hope this excerpt is taken as intended, and with the implicit understanding that every piece of software carries its own distinct list of advantages & disadvantages]:
Entitled ?Studio apps rock; FCP still could use a bit of work? -- from May 20, 2007 -- it read in part:
?... Given the suite's fantastic breadth and depth of functionality, however, the newest iteration of the core application of the bunch, FCP6, does come off as a bit disappointing by comparison.
While the Open Timeline and ProRes 422 are notable and worthy enhancements to the FCP canon, the app nevertheless continues to be hampered by some long-standing Achilles' heels, including various media management and UI issues. While everyone has their individual list of pet concerns, few knowledgeable users would argue that notable limitations don't exist.
Especially considering the two-year "hiatus" from FCP's last major release, this is an unexpected bit of a letdown ...?
Overall, it's more deja vu than I?d have expected. I don?t mean to sound too dissatisfied, but they?ve really had 4+ YEARS now to do a decent overhaul on the thing.
(Of course, in the review, I then went on to commend Apple for the great synergy & price point of the whole package.)
~~~
That said, what does everyone make of the Timing of this announcement? No press event, no tie-in with any kind of industry event that I?m aware of. The announcement almost seems like a throwaway of some kind ...
Best wishes, and happy Summer to all!
Ron Diamond
--
At last, versatile, extensible & robust User Preferences for FCP!
[www.EditGroove.com]
Well, this one was an unexpected surprise. Our friends Steve Martin & Kevin Monahan sure can keep a secret!
And while there are some nice features being added (and a very reasonable upgrade price, to boot) ... after 2+ YEARS, I really thought they could hit this one out of the park.
Though compared to what arguably needed to be done with the app, it feels more like just a base hit.
In fact, my original Amazon review of FCS2 may still be eerily apropos. [Though I hope this excerpt is taken as intended, and with the implicit understanding that every piece of software carries its own distinct list of advantages & disadvantages]:
Entitled ?Studio apps rock; FCP still could use a bit of work? -- from May 20, 2007 -- it read in part:
?... Given the suite's fantastic breadth and depth of functionality, however, the newest iteration of the core application of the bunch, FCP6, does come off as a bit disappointing by comparison.
While the Open Timeline and ProRes 422 are notable and worthy enhancements to the FCP canon, the app nevertheless continues to be hampered by some long-standing Achilles' heels, including various media management and UI issues. While everyone has their individual list of pet concerns, few knowledgeable users would argue that notable limitations don't exist.
Especially considering the two-year "hiatus" from FCP's last major release, this is an unexpected bit of a letdown ...?
Overall, it's more deja vu than I?d have expected. I don?t mean to sound too dissatisfied, but they?ve really had 4+ YEARS now to do a decent overhaul on the thing.
(Of course, in the review, I then went on to commend Apple for the great synergy & price point of the whole package.)
~~~
That said, what does everyone make of the Timing of this announcement? No press event, no tie-in with any kind of industry event that I?m aware of. The announcement almost seems like a throwaway of some kind ...
Best wishes, and happy Summer to all!
Ron Diamond
--
At last, versatile, extensible & robust User Preferences for FCP!
[www.EditGroove.com]
|
Re: FCP 7: Motion 4 : Color 1.5 ect :-))) July 24, 2009 03:34AM |
All Apple manuals are printed on paper from guilty trees who deserved to die! 
___________________________________________________
Alexandre Gollner,
Editor, Zone 2-North West, London
alex4d on twitter, facebook, .wordpress.com + .com
___________________________________________________
Alexandre Gollner,
Editor, Zone 2-North West, London
alex4d on twitter, facebook, .wordpress.com + .com
|
Re: FCP 7: Motion 4 : Color 1.5 ect :-))) July 24, 2009 09:29AM |
...you gonna do that every day until it arrives Alex?
When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.
When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.
|
Re: FCP 7: Motion 4 : Color 1.5 ect :-))) July 24, 2009 10:25AM |
I don't think anybody uses the built-in text generator in Final Cut for anything other than placeholders.
|
Re: FCP 7: Motion 4 : Color 1.5 ect :-))) July 24, 2009 10:42AM |
Quote
I don't think anybody uses the built-in text generator in Final Cut for anything other than placeholders.
...which is WRONG and has always been WRONG. The Title Tool should be robust. Even Premiere's Title Tool has always been better than FCP's. It's a huge hole in the app that has always been high on the Feature Request List...wonder why they chose to skip it?
When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
