macnn
01/26/2008, 2:30pm, EST
Saturday, January 26th
Red warns users of Quicktime 7.4 upgrade
Digital video specialist Red is alerting its users to an incompatibility with QuickTime 7.4 when using Red Alert, as well as issues with Final Cut Pro and Red One footage. Users will experience decreased system stability, so Red advises users to avoid upgrading to QuickTime 7.4 until either itself or Apple has issued a fix. Neither Red nor Apple has commented on what is causing the issue, and it is unknown if any of Red's other products are affected by the bug.

The modular, customizable Red One camera
Filed under: troubleshooting, software, Apple
Other story tags: video, QuickTime, Final Cut Pro, digital
,
, 10
,
,
,
,
,
,

subscribe to comments
for this article
We pro media users have seen it now for years; for instance, the inability to open a Final Cut Pro project file -- even within main interger releases! Add one dot-release and you're relegated to XML project transport to transfer to an older FCP version. That's kid stuff. That little Gotcha can shut down an offline-to-online workflow for a day or more.
Apple should get a memory, and test everything possible. Avid has trumped them for years on this level.
Yet every time an update comes out one reads post after post from so-called pro users who are now dead-in-the-water with their projects and are screaming at Apple for help (after going on a ranting tirade first of course).
Doesn't sound like professionalism to me.
Well, they have, but that doesn't mean everyone has installed the patch, because they can't because patches are usually made for the latest version of the OS, not previous versions.
Oh, and maybe someone should point out to lkrupp that most software can get updates without it breaking functionality or causing incompatibilities with integrated or other software. Yet, for some reason, esp. with Quicktime, Apple has such a hard time getting this to happen.
Maybe Apple should think about breaking out all the iTMS specific code from quicktime, so it can be what it used to be, rather then being your iTMS Fairplay software that requires updates and patches everytime Apple decides to update the iTMS or iTunes.
Certainly. I don't make a living with computers; I make a living as a filmmaker and editor working digitally. Professional editors often do an offline edit on their own systems, which they gleefully upgrade to the latest and greatest. And then take the entire project and supporting media to an ONLINE facility running $500/hour for broadcast finishing, HD mastering, etc. Offliners usually call ahead to confirm both FCP systems are the same general version -- but they forget about Apple Appnesia, only to find the project generated by their newest FCP CANNOT LOAD into the expensive online system-- even though the difference in versions is one damn dot release-- i.e. 6.0.1 to 6.0.2.. It's happened to me. And it delayed an online session. And it happens all over the place. XML export/import is the only way out. (And of course, being profesisonal, I now include an XML file of the project on a disc, in case.)
And like I say-- Appnesia is kid stuff. Avid nailed this gotcha years ago; you can load any project into any current version release and usually two releases or more backward without choking. The FCP team has been made aware of the issue like years ago. I don't blame them; I chalk it up to corporate policy.
Well, just because you're paid to do something doesn't mean you have the extra cash to buy redundancy for everything. Some people are doing very well financially, most are not. More and more often these days, economics are driving creative professionals to make the most of less equipment.
When that fact is combined with the software industry's growing practice of releasing Beta code as Final code - using the public as beta testers - then we get more of these situations where updates wreak havoc on people who need to get projects done.
So we arrive at the real lack of professionalism. We pay Apple for hardware and software that works. We pay them under the assumption that their products HAVE BEEN TESTED in a realistic range of uses. We pay them assuming that if they didn't do so themselves, they've contacted people who make the software we use so THEY can test an update's functionality.
It's obvious with this and many other updates, neither of these things happened. So with that in mind, why do companies like Apple charge so much for their software products? They really need to test more, to justify these costs.
I bring up economics causing us to do more with less, relating to individuals and small companies. This hinderance is not so much a factor when the "professional" is a multi-national multi-million dollar company like, say, an Apple or an Adobe.
These "professionals" are in a much better position to buy test rigs and people to run them through the paces. A freelance video editor is not. There is a vast difference in available resources and so also, a difference in responsibility.. who should carry the burden of testing and who ends up doing it.