Talk:Final Cut Pro

Final Cut Pro X

There should probably be a new entry for Final Cut Pro X - it is an entirely new application. Aside from the name and that it's intended for video editing the applications have nothing in common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.240.135 (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

While I think this may be necessary (and personally I agree that it is effectively a new application) we probably need to wait a while for the dust to settle. And we'd also need to decide how to direct the "Final Cut Pro" link. Should it go to Final Cut Pro X, with a link to Final Cut Pro Studio? Or we could create a disambiguation page, that prompts the user to choose one or the other (seems extreme to me). I'm also not sure how much weight we need to give to Apple, who seem to believe this is actually an upgrade, versus how much to the user community, many of whom believe it is a new piece of software, and that FCP Studio has, in essence, been discontinued. Begeun (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I think a new page is almost inevitable. When I consider sections like the one about major motion pictures to be edited with Final Cut Pro, these can hardly be associated with Final Cut Pro X. Even if FCPX does eventually reach mega-feature-film capacity, it will be drastically different than the release that edited the Lord of the Rings movies, for instance. While I want to maintain NPOV, I feel that the article in its current form frankly misrepresents the current status of FCP[X]. Perhaps there needs to be an article on the "History of Final Cut Pro" or "Evolution of Final Cut Pro," and the categories could be, for instance:

1. Pre-FCP-Studio releases
2. FCP-Studio releases
3. FCPX and later

Personally, I am now editing about half my projects in Premiere (which I started using for the first time in my life after FCPX was released), and half in FCP Studio. After more reading around the 'net, it's pretty clear that the "old" FCP is gone. Let's write it... whoever has a few extra hours.... Begeun (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Feature films list

Should the feature films edited be moved further down the page? OK, post Cold Mountain FCP can edit feature films, granted, but on that basis every Vogue cover should be in the Photoshop listing! Less gravitas, more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.114.57 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. I have moved the list to List of feature films edited with Final Cut Pro, linked it appropriately on the main FCP article, and reduced the list on the main article to a short paragraph. It conveys the fact that FCP is a serious film-editing program, without burdening the article with a long list. While I think that it would be quite appropriate for the list page to grow extensively, I would think that any films listed on the main page should either be big-budget or significant in their technical breakthroughs (like Sky Captain). --TangentIdea 02:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think this list has no reason to be here. Can anyone prove all of these films were edited with Final Cut Pro? There are no citations for any of them. In fact, I visited Joel Cox in the cutting room while he was working on Letters from Iwo Jima, and he was most definitely using Avid to cut it. To me, that makes almost all of these films suspect. --Guido del Confuso 11:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confident the list has every reason to be here, for the same reason a college entry might list notable alumnii. I believe it should remain. It's not oppressively long, and it provides an illustrative progression from smaller, more indie films, to large studio product. However, if there's indeed a mistake in it (like Letters from Iwo Jima -- as you attest and seem to be sure of) feel free to edit it out or contest that information with a citation. WikiTracker 00:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I too believe the list is an important historical record which shows the pattern of adoption that took place from late 2001 to about 2006. However, we have come to the point where so much is being done with FCP within the professional sphere that continued additions to the list could overburden it and decrease its historic value. Perhaps a closing date should be chosen for included films, and the section title should be changed to "Landmark Films Using Final Cut Pro" or "Early Films to Use Final Cut Pro" or "Films that pioneered the use of Final Cut Pro." Just an idea... WikiTracker (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As for proof, I just now added an entry to the list "Specied III" (after just watching the film), the proof was in the credits (I'm not sure how to cite it, someone else can if they care.) [I don't have a username.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.138.199.54 (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, typo, that should be "Species III". 118.138.199.54 (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if there was a separation between films cut on FCPX and FCP 7. Zer0Nin3r (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I notice that the Wiki article on Adobe Premier Pro also claims the honor of being the video editor used for producing The Social Network (with a reference to show that this was the case). Could this be clarified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.198.14 (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Documentry

Should we also include a list for documentrys? there are many docos done in finl cut there were more then just a simple cut between scenes, such as "The Secret" (Nickcirc 06:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

External link

Anon editor 209.164.32.131 (talk · contribs) added the following external link, http://finalcutpro.digitalmedianet.com/. Other recently added links from this IP have been borderline spam, or at least a low quality links. Could someone more knowledgable about Final Cut Pro please investigate. BlankVerse ∅ 13:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intel Macs???

Has FCP been re-written for the new Intel Macs? Will it run on them?...

Currently, no. It will not run on Intel Macs at all. The Universal Binary version is in development and should be released before the end of March. See [1]. --Baryonic Being 22:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If I had a dollar for every time that question was asked on the Final Cut boards on the Apple Support site, I would have enough saved up to buy the Universal Binary when it gets released... --TangentIdea 23:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Final Cut Studio Universal is now available, and can be upgraded by users of FCP, or any of the other programs included in FC Studio. One is required to mail in a form and their original DVD-ROM discs along with payment. See [2] David Fell

Adobe Stock Price & FCP

There's a line in this article that states that Adobe's stock price dropped on introduction of Final Cut Pro. In looking at historical financial data for the time I can't see this. I don't want to remove the passage immediately because I'm not overly familiar with the topic, but look at this information on the Yahoo Finance site linked to below and Adobe's stock really rose in the year 1999, not really seeing any major decrease due to FCP (or so it seems).

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=ADBE&a=01&b=10&c=1999&d=08&e=10&f=1999&g=w

I'm going to leave it to someone familiar with the topic to do the actual edit, otherwise it may just be edited out again for inconsistency...

P toolan 15:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The article states that Adobe Premiere's market share plummeted after the intro of FCP, not Adobe's stock price. Which is reasonably accurate, but probably overstating the case -- there was fairly rapid market attrition over the following 1-2 years after FCP was introduced, not an instant sales freeze on Premiere.

squeegee 15:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

FCP History and Avid?

The history section has no mention whatsoever of the fiercest rival of FCP, which was Avid. The whole section concentrates on Adobe Premiere as the "other side", which is only half of the story. Unfortunately, I am not that proficient with the details as to expand the section on this story, but anyone who remembers the "50,000$ editing system. Now 98% off" slogan on Apple's website when FCP was launched knows what I mean. At the time, Avid was the dominant offline editing system on the market, and was sold exclusively as a complete Apple-Avid system on macs. Part of Apple's move with FCP was to retaliate on Avid's decision to open their system to the Windows platform - hence the contemptuous slogan (A high-end Avid system would cost something around the 50k$)

Guycarmeli 16:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

When FCP was first launched it's primary competition was Premiere, Avid systems at that point were still Turn-key. People who owned stand-alone Macs and wanted to edit video primarily used Premiere. It wasn't until 2002, as I recall, that Apple started to aggressively position themselves as competition for Avid. And probably not until 2003-2004 that they really started to have an impact. It wasn't until Avid Xpress DV (in 2002 I believe) that Avid even offered a software-only NLE product.

It was in early 2002 that Apple did it's first worldwide print and web campaign to push FCP as a viable professional alternative to Avid. Film director Roger Avary was the spokesperson for that campaign, which was primarily targeted toward industry trade publications, like Daily Variety. I would suggest that the impact was felt almost immediately, as Soderbergh was the next to use FCP, and after that Walter Murch. Pretty big heavy hitters. By early 2003 a number of Hollywood productions had the faith to adopt FCP 3.x and it was already eclipsing Avid in the commercial & music video production sphere. It's true Avid had (and still has) a heavy installed turn-key user base at post houses, but the low relative cost of a FCP system saw many FCP edit bays added alongside those Avid systems. I remember post houses renting those rooms for less, and them always being booked because of it. WikiTracker (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Avid NAB 2008

Mentioning that Avid announced it will have a small booth at NAB this year seems like an editorial comment, designed to give the impression that FCP is dominating the professional editing market and Avid is withering on the vine. FCP has made noteworthy gains, but it is still very much the exception rather than the rule. Suggest this sentence be removed. --75.178.92.119 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The features section of this article claims that an unlimited number of video tracks can be simultaneously composited, yet the article Comparison of video editing software pegs the maximum for Final Cut Studio at 99 video tracks. Does anyone know which is correct? — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 15:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The page seems to have been rewritten by users of other editing systems, and not by Final Cut Pro users.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.198.13.178 (talk • contribs)

So which is correct? — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You can have 99 tracks in a sequence, however with nesting (putting a sequence in a sequence) you can have unlimited basically (basically 99 tracks with any of them being a sequence of 99 tracks with any of them being 99 tracks etc) 74.117.128.12 05:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that this is entirely dependent on the processing capabilities of the machine one is using. I am currently sitting with a Xeon 64 bit processor running FCP which is starting to choke on six video tracks. I wouldn't mention it if it weren't so annoying. Go AVID!  :) 41.133.62.97 (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Should Apple be credited as the developer of this software (not only in the sidebar but in the opening narrative), when its history states that it was developed by Macromedia? (I was tempted to make this edit, but realize that different criteria might be used in each instance.) MIchael 02:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Time Remapping

Could someone please elaborate what time remapping exactly means and where you would use it (and preferably how it works). I think a new article would be the best here. THANKS -- Michael Janich 09:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Films Edited with FCP Section

This list is starting to get a bit too long, and will only get longer. I've been bold and cut out the films which are pretty minor or maybe aren't so fantastic: Reno 911, Balls of Fury, The Comebacks, We are the Strange, Night of the Living Dead 3D and Hoot. And I think it could be cut down further.

I've also changed the title of this section to 'Selected Films Edited on FCP'. Given that more and more major films are being edited on FCP, perhaps films should only appear on this list when they're major or otherwise notable releases. JMalky (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be better to list some editors known to use this program as well. I noticed several of the films there are from the Coen brothers, which leads me to think that someone in their productions swears by Final Cut Pro.—Iggy Koopa (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it is a good thing to only have "fantastic" releases on the list? I mean, I agree with the idea that "Balls of Fury" and "Reno 911" aren't exactly what I would consider a good movie, but I know many people who really enjoyed "Balls of Fury," etc. We should be careful about that. Obviously, the list is very long, but perhaps we should make a separate page for the list of movies edited in Final Cut Pro that way we can facilitate all movies and not get caught up into a battle over which films deserve to be on the list. Let me know what you think! --Fatedbreath (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Screen-shot

Hey everyone, I just have some questions regarding the screen shot of Final Cut Pro. Right now, it's in the "interface" section. That makes a lot of sense, of course, but I think we need to have a screen-shot at the top of the page, in the info box on the right. Many other articles for software do the same thing. I don't know if we should have the image in both places, or if we should remove the one in the interface section. Also, regarding the image itself, it's a jpeg, and I think we can do better than jpeg! I have final cut on my computer, so I could take a screen shot and upload it as a PNG, but I wanted to know what all of you thought first. Thanks!! P.S. this could also apply to other screen-shots in the article. --Robo56 (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Call for update of page - moved to talk page

This line was added by an IP - I have moved it to this talk page "Information Out of date, New Final Cut Studio has been released, final cut pro 7 is the newest version, pages needs update." Tschild (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagging

This article has collected yet another of those bothersome tags, which I equate to vandalism. Look, you are free to edit this article and put your version of the truth up before the reading and watching public. I don't see the problem. It requires clean up? It reads like an advertisement? It reads like a manual? It needs additional sources of verification? But nobody comments here. What for example? It tells what the software does. What crosses the line in your opinion? I'm tempted to clean out all those unnecessary and distracting tags, but I'll leave this comment here for a while to see what these questions generates.

What I do see is a lot of influence about a single competitor--Avid. There are other competitors, why does Avid merit mention in the second paragraph while others don't. Why is the competitor at the top of the article? Why not put that, and the other competitors as a preface to the list of other Comparison of Video Editing Software?Trackinfo (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the advert tag. Whoever posted it did not say what is ad-like, and I don't see anything ad-like at all in there. The closest I could find is this bit from History: "Final Cut Pro benefited tremendously from the relative maturity and stability of QuickTime...". Look, it says QuickTime is relatively mature and stable. But that section wasn't very cleanly written so I just rewrote it to clean it up. Richcon (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Market share

Here's a survey of market share: http://ace-filmeditors.org/2009-ace-equipment-survey/ I'd like this kind of information added. Maybe you know a better source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.209.121.131 (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

New URL for this survey: http://ace-filmeditors.org/tech-blog/2009-ace-equipment-survey/ --Ah (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Non encyclopedic informations deleted

I delete the price of the software because clearly commercial and non-encyclopedic informations. Hope all of you agree with me.--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

File names and file formats

The latest file extension isn't .fcpx, it's .fcpproject (Final Cut Pro X). It's no longer a binary file (well, not so much). It's structured around an SQLite3 database, with MOST data in blobs inside the entries. This should be updated (pref. by someone whose edit won't get rolled back automatically). (194.60.226.124 (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC))

Infobox

Quick question: This article is about the earlier versions of FCP, not FCPX, which has its own article, right? However, the logo and screenshot in the infobox are FCPX. Is there any reason for this, or should we have the screenshot of the final version of the old FCP, along with its logo? I don't have the old FCP, so I can't change it. drewmunn talk 10:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

FCP and FCPX

Per the above discussion, and as nobody has answered, I've decided to start an RfC to discuss this further. I have a couple of issues with the article currently, and they both stem from the opening disclaimer: "This article is about earlier versions of the Final Cut Pro editing software. For latest version, see Final Cut Pro X." So as to avoid RSI, I'll refer to Final Cut Pro as FCP and Final Cut Pro X as FCPX.

• Firstly, as I mentioned above, if this article is about FCP rather than its successor FCPX, why is the FCPX logo and a screenshot of FCPX used to illustrate? I don't have FCP, so I can't update the screenshot myself, and I'd prefer consensus on such a change before altering the screenshot & logo.
• Secondly, the latest release date listed is that of FCPX. If this article is, as claimed, about FCP, then shouldn't we list the last release of FCP?

As far as I can tell, this article seems to be fairly good at sticking to FCP, and leaving the newer stuff to FCPX's article, but these are a couple of discrepancies that I'd appreciate people would give their opinion on so we can move forward. Thanks!  drewmunn  talk  12:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. RFC bot called me on this one. It seems to me the relation between Final Cut Pro and Final Cut Pro X articles is similar to the relationship of Microsoft Office and Microsoft Office 2013 (which is the latest version of Microsoft Office at the time). So, there is no surprise both are using the same shot.

Even if this article is about the classic version of Final Cut Pro, the hatnotes are not allowed. Hatnotes are used for disambiguation and these hatnotes are disclaimers. (See Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between the old, classic version of Final Cut Pro, versions 1 through 7, with a long history which this article covers. Documented between these two articles, Apple made a major deviation from the original product when it introduced Final Cut Pro X. It is so different, there are some who have questioned Apple using the same name. Apple owns the name, so it is their right to do so, but as far as wikipedia is concerned, we do not need to follow their lead and expunge or blur the existence of the classic product, much as they seem to want to. This is clearly not an update as compared to Microsoft Word (fill in the year to year). It would be more comparable to Microsoft Word stopping being a text editing program and now moved character image fragments to create documents because text characters are so passe. The hatnote, like anything that employs wikilinking, is just a form of aiding the readers to find the correct article about whichever version of the software they wish. That means disambiguation. I'm not sure where Lisa's confusion about it being a disclaimer comes from. From what I can determine, the logo change occurred when someone uploaded the new logo and replaced it as the same name. Again overzealous attempts to blur the two pieces of software, possibly before the immense distinction became apparent (though I documented many users noticed the difference within seconds of the announcement, that is not apparent to everybody, especially with Apple's marketing). I'm not sure if this history documents that edit, because I cannot see the logo that was present before, the logo that would be appropriate for this article. Trackinfo (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. No, what you said is not disambiguation. Disambiguation applies only when ambiguity exists, e.g. when two products called Final Cut Pro exist. (Compare KMPlayer with KMPlayer.) And no, I am not confused.

That said, your sentence "as far as wikipedia is concerned, we do not need to follow their lead" is absolutely wrong. Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Apple's point of view on the lineage of its own intellectual property is what matters most and you are simply endorsing a biased point of view of your own because the changes between two version was a lot for you to grasp.

You are at liberty to write an article on versions of Final Cut Pro prior to X – or even convert this one to such article. But then, the article is titled "Final Cut classic" and will have no biased comments on how overwhelming you feel the differences are. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk)

Uh, Lisa: " . . . because the changes between two version was a lot for you to grasp." is not only insulting, but reveals a bias you are wishing to impose upon this article by procuring the name. This article has been about the Final Cut Pro product longer than you have been an editor on wikipedia. When the new product Final Cut Pro X came out, with its radical deviation, a new article was created for that development. This article remains about the classic version which surveys show is still quite active and popular among professional media. Its separate value would be notable even without its continued value, but as a contemporary product in the eyes of the marketplace, it deserves equal and separate recognition on wikipedia. The difference were made clear at the very top of the article until you decided to remove the informational hatnotes. If there is a problem here, it is of your own biased making. Trackinfo (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. No offense intended, Trackinfo. Still, edit history reveals that this article has not been about the Final Cut Pro classic product longer than I have been an editor on Wikipedia. In fact, throughout all its history, it had been a mixed article both about Final Cut Pro as a family and about Final Cut Pro classic but had never made it clear of one of the two perspectives. Still, all that you explained are your own point of view; I need to see a source for them to believe them.

Last but not least, "informational" hatnotes are not allowed in Wikipedia. Hatnotes are for disambiguation only. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The differences between FCP and FCPX are more akin to Microsoft re-using the term Surface for two separate products than the differences between Word versions; although the two uses are both video editing software, one is professional video composition and editing, the other a prosumer non-linear system. The background tech is different, and the FCPX core is incompatible with the aims of FCP. I think 2 separate pages are necessary, but I'm unsure if the current setup is the most productive. Things are confunded by the issues that caused me to start this RfC...  drewmunn  talk  21:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That is correct, drew. You always had a knack for good observation. So, let's say they are as different as Windows NT 4.0 and Windows XP. But I digress. I do not mind seeing a sets of articles called "FCP classic" and "FCPX". Neither do I mind seeing a sets of articles called "FCP family" and "FCPX". But I'm not seeing either. What I am seeing is two set of articles called "FCPX" and "FCP-but-no-idea-about-classic-or-family". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

So, here is my recommendation: Start a section below titled: "RFC: Should this article be about FCP classic or FCP as a family". (Move the RFC tag there.) Then add two subsections called "Survey" and "Discussion". See if you can ask a non-involved person in WikiProject Mac to curate the discussion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I got here through the RFC bot, I don't have an opinion one way or another about FCP/FCPX, and most of what I know about it I gleaned from the two articles on Wikipedia. Having said that, here's the way I see it:

"Final Cut Pro" is a brand under which several video editing products have been released. The latest of those products differs drastically from the previous line, but nevertheless it is both a video editing product and it also bears the name. As such, it would be logical for us to have an article that covers the "Final Cut Pro" brand and explains the history of the product, perhaps even mentioning the differences between X and earlier versions in the lede, as it seems like a relevant thing someone unfamiliar with the product at all might want to know (and not even from a POV-y "they ruined our favorite software" perspective, but from a "the software was rewritten from scratch and that's significant" perspective). See the Adobe Photoshop for a good example of something like this.

Beyond that, we may be better served by having, as suggested above, a Final Cut Pro classic as well as a FCPX article, which would cover the specific features and history of each line of software in more detail. We certainly don't want to have a hatnote directing people looking for "Final Cut Pro" to "Final Cut Pro X", as that would only end up being confusing with no additional explanation as to why such a distinction is made between the two.  — daranz [ t ] 11:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• From the feedback so far, it seems the way that people think we should progress relies on three articles: Final Cut Pro (for the family), Final Cut Pro X (for FCPX), and Final Cut Pro (classic) (for pre-FCPX). If you look at the Final cut disambiguation, you'll see the articles that already exist for items in the Final Cut family in general, so I'd personally prefer to see the "family" page, entitled Final Cut, and have sections in that article for FC Express, FC Studio, FC Server, FCP and FCPX. If I had a little more time, I'd mock something up in my sandbox, but for now, I'll leave it to you to imagine. What do you think of that as a way forward? If we as a small group consider it viable, I'll take it forward as a separate RfC and invite everyone from all of the FC articles.  drewmunn  talk  11:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I get here via RFC. I don't know the products, so I cannot easily add anything useful. It seems to me that the main lines of thinking have already been discussed fairly validly, and the previous two comments by Daranz & Drewmunn seem very reasonable. Based on such material some accommodation should be practical IMO. 12.199.84.146 (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi. Non-registered users can also get RFC notices? Didn't know that; although I still cannot work out how. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

    I assumed they got here through reading a list of RfCs or via an account, but didn't remain logged in. I'm not sure of any other way that would allow it...  drewmunn  talk  14:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect information

"The most recent version, Final Cut Pro X 10.2, runs on Intel-based Mac OS computers powered by OS X version 10.9 or later."

This is wrong. FCPX 10.2 only runs on OS X 10.10.2 or later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.105.155.234 (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Final Cut Pro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724222007/http://ace-filmeditors.org/blog/uploaded_images/EditSystems-763900.png to http://ace-filmeditors.org/blog/uploaded_images/EditSystems-763900.png

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by proposer; after reading more about Final Cut's history over the past few days, I now believe a merge is the best course of action. DFlhb (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

---

• Final Cut Pro → Final Cut Pro (classic)
• Final Cut Pro X → Final Cut Pro

– (tl;dr: instead of having one article about both versions, and one article about the new version, why not just give each version its own article, and rely on hatnotes to navigate between the two?)

The old split (see discussions above) made no sense. First, FCPX is now just called FCP (no X), so the article names are now confusing. Second, the scope is poorly thought-out. If I want to add material about FCPX, I currently need to add it in two places, and keep both articles in sync; that's pointless and redundant. Third, most of this article is about FCP pre-X, despite the misleading infobox and lead. The Interface section was written in 2006/2010, before FCPX existed. We could fix this with a 3-way split, as previously proposed, but then this main article would just be a short stub with two summary sections, which would be pointless.

My proposal is to remove all the stuff about FCPX from this article, and move it to "Final Cut Pro (classic)". It gives the historically-significant old version its own article, which can be expanded at-will without causing confusion with the new version. It would allow us to restore all the deleted images (see invisible comments in the article markup). The "FCP (classic)" article would be summarized in the new version's article, in the history section, and both articles would fit together far better, with a clear, non-redundant scope. BTW, if you oppose the "(classic)" name, feel free to propose an alternative. DFlhb (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About merge from Final Cut Pro X

See the relevant talk page discussion: Talk:Final_Cut_Pro_X#Final_Cut_Pro_X

I merged Final Cut Pro X to Final Cut Pro, for the reasons given in the discussion linked right above. I did the merge boldly for two reasons:

• First, because the related articles and talk pages receive minimal activity (beyond minor fixes);
• Second, because it was worth seeing what such a merge would look like in practice, as opposed to discussing it in the abstract. This article contained a lot of cruft; the Interface section was solely about FCP7, not both products, and read like a user manual. Same with the File Format section. That left very little encyclopedic material except the History section, which made a merge seem natural.

Here is the merge diff, deliberately done in one edit so that it could be easily reverted. Note, that diff also contained a comprehensive copy edit of the History section (including merged content), assisted by GPT-3 but manually reviewed at length. If anyone reverts the merge, feel free to keep the copy edits. DFlhb (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Merging Talk Pages

Talk:Final Cut Pro X and Talk:Final Cut Pro pages. Doremon764 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Concern about promotional tone and neutrality in the introduction

Hello everyone,

I have some concerns about the tone of the introduction in the Final Cut Pro article. Certain phrases in this section appear promotional or lack neutrality. Here are the issues I’ve identified:

1. Subjective phrasing:

"developed a large and expanding user base" – This sounds subjective. It could be reworded more neutrally, like "Final Cut Pro gained popularity among video hobbyists and independent filmmakers."

"made inroads with film and television editors" – This could imply success without much context. A more neutral alternative might be "Final Cut Pro became increasingly used by film and television editors."

2. Framing of Final Cut Pro X:

The sentence "though frequent updates have brought back many of these features" downplays the initial negative reception Final Cut Pro X received when it lacked many key features from previous versions. I think we should mention the initial criticism along with the updates, for balance.

3. Comparison with Avid:

The comparison stating Final Cut Pro had 49% of the professional market vs. 22% for Avid lacks broader context. It would be good to include more details on how this market share changed over time or how Avid responded, to avoid sounding one-sided.

I believe addressing these points will help maintain neutrality and provide a more balanced view. I’m happy to propose specific wording changes if others agree.

Thoughts?

Thanks! JESUS (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on the tone and balance of the "Features" section

Hello,

I'd like to bring up some concerns about the tone and balance of the Features section in the Final Cut Pro article. While the section provides useful technical information, certain phrases and framing might come across as promotional or overly positive. Here are the specific issues I've identified:

1. Technical Jargon Without Explanation:

Terms like "Grand Central Dispatch," "Open CL," "GPU accelerated processing," and "Apple ProRes codec" are used without much explanation. While accurate, they may not be accessible to all readers. Providing brief explanations or simplifications would help make the content more user-friendly without sacrificing technical detail.

2. Positive Framing:

Phrases like "takes advantage of more than 4GB of RAM," "utilizes all CPU cores," and "many tasks are performed in the background, allowing the user an uninterrupted experience" imply that these features are automatically beneficial. Rephrasing these statements in a more neutral way might help reduce promotional undertones. For example:

"Final Cut Pro X is a 64-bit application capable of addressing more than 4GB of RAM."

"The software supports multiple CPU cores through Grand Central Dispatch."

3. Implied Superiority:

Statements like "GPU accelerated processing for improved performance" and "allowing the user an uninterrupted experience" imply a superior experience without mentioning how this compares to competitors or potential drawbacks. It could be useful to focus on what the software does, rather than emphasizing perceived benefits.

4. Consistency and Flow:

The descriptions of Motion 5 and Adobe Photoshop feel somewhat disconnected from the rest of the section. I think it might be helpful to group these under a subsection like "Software Integration" to make the section more cohesive.

5. Lack of Balance:

The section highlights Final Cut Pro X's strengths but does not mention any limitations or potential challenges users might face, such as system requirements or any feature gaps. Including these would offer a more balanced view.

I think addressing these points would improve the neutrality and readability of the Features section. I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this, and I’m happy to suggest specific changes if there’s agreement.

Thanks! JESUS (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on the tone and balance of the "Ecosystem" section

Hello,

I'd like to raise a few points regarding the "Ecosystem" section of the Final Cut Pro article. While it offers good technical information, there are areas where the tone and clarity could be improved to ensure it stays neutral and accessible. Here are my observations:

1. Unexplained technical terms:

Terms like "FXScript," "FxPlug API," and "FCPXML" are introduced without much explanation. While these terms are accurate, they may not be clear to readers who are not familiar with technical jargon. It might be helpful to add brief descriptions or links to explain these terms for a broader audience.

2. Positive Framing:

The sentence "This has led to a third-party ecosystem of developers building effects from simple color corrections to complex templates" presents the evolution of the ecosystem as purely positive. It could be reworded to avoid implying that this development is automatically beneficial, such as:

"This has resulted in the development of a third-party ecosystem, with plugins ranging from simple color corrections to complex templates."

3. Lack of Balance:

The section only highlights the growth of third-party tools and plugins but doesn't mention any potential challenges or limitations of using third-party plugins (e.g., compatibility issues, performance impacts). Including some of these considerations would provide a more balanced view.

4. Framing of Database Structure:

The phrasing "As Projects, Events, and Libraries are stored in a database format; this has allowed many third-party developers to build workflow tools by utilizing FCPXML" implies that the database format is inherently a positive feature. It would be more neutral to state this fact without implying a value judgment, such as:

"The database format of Projects, Events, and Libraries enables third-party developers to create workflow tools using FCPXML."

By addressing these points, we can ensure the section is neutral, more accessible, and informative to a wider range of readers. I'm happy to propose specific wording changes if others agree with this assessment.

What do others think?

Thanks! JESUS (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on tone and clarity in the "History" section

Hello,

I’d like to discuss the tone and clarity of the History section in the Final Cut Pro article. While it provides a detailed timeline of version updates, there are a few areas that could be improved to ensure neutrality and accessibility. Here are my concerns:

1. Lack of Attribution:

The phrase "producers,[who?] have agreed that Final Cut Pro X's initial shortcomings have been fixed" lacks proper attribution and sources. It’s unclear who these "producers" are, and we should either provide a citation or remove this statement, as it can come across as speculative or promotional.

2. Positive Framing:

Certain statements imply improvements without mentioning initial issues or providing balanced perspectives. For example, "One of the notable changes introduced... was the Magnetic Timeline, which replaced the track-based timeline of previous versions" mentions the fix for audio stem exporting issues but glosses over the initial backlash. We could rephrase this to reflect both sides of the issue, such as:

"The introduction of the Magnetic Timeline in Final Cut Pro X, while innovative, initially caused issues with exporting audio stems for broadcast and distribution, a concern addressed with the release of version 10.0.1."

3. Excessive Detail:

Some of the version update details, such as the description of folder structures before and after version 10.1, are overly specific and could be simplified. The current description of the Project and Event Libraries might overwhelm readers unfamiliar with the software. We could streamline this by focusing on the most significant changes, such as:

"In version 10.1, Apple merged the previously separate Project and Event Libraries into a new Library model, improving media organization and management."

4. Implied Superiority:

Features like the introduction of "3D Titles" or "Color Correction" are presented as clear improvements without acknowledging any potential limitations or criticisms. It would be more neutral to describe the features without implying that they automatically improved the software.

5. Unverified User Numbers:

The statement "In April 2018, Apple said that there were more than 2.5 million users of Final Cut Pro X" should ideally be supported with a reference to an official Apple statement or reliable source. Otherwise, it may seem promotional.

6. Dropping the 'X' from the name:

The last sentence states, "the X was dropped from the name," but there’s no explanation as to why this change was made or its impact on users. Providing context for this change would help readers understand its significance.

Suggested Edits:

We could remove or rewrite vague claims like "producers, [who?], have agreed..."

Provide more context around initial criticisms and fixes, such as the Magnetic Timeline.

Simplify the description of technical details to focus on major updates and user-facing features.

Ensure all claims about user numbers or product changes are properly sourced.

What do others think? I’m happy to draft more specific wording changes if there’s agreement on these points.

Thanks! JESUS (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)