Talk:Final Cut Pro

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Feature films list

message: 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)
thread_title: Documentry

message: Anon editor  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)
thread_title: External link

message: 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)
thread_title:  Adobe Stock Price & FCP 

message: 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)
thread_title: Avid NAB 2008

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Inconsistency

message: 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)
thread_title: Time Remapping

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Films Edited with FCP Section

message: 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)
thread_title: Screen-shot

message: 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)
thread_title:  Call for update of page - moved to talk page 

message: 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)
thread_title: Tagging

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Non encyclopedic informations deleted 

message: 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)
thread_title:  File names and file formats 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Incorrect information  

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Requested move 4 January 2023 

message: 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)
thread_title:  About merge from [[Final Cut Pro X]] 

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