> But the question remains: is this enough for you to feel like Apple still cares about filmmakers?
You keep hammering this BS over an over in the article. FCPX the first version had some features cut not because Apple didn't "care", but because they cared so much that they rewrote the app from scratch, to get rid of legacy code and better position the codebase for future updates. They could also have redone an implementation of the same tried and tired editing timeline, but they tried to invent a new one.
Since then, they have added most, if not all, of the missing features back, and improved into lots of areas, with .1, .2. and now .3 (e.g. added great multicam editing).
And while a lot of people, especially change averse people, jumped to the familiar FCP 7 workflow of Premiere, a lot of use stick with FCPX, including lots of editors for major features. And it's one of the best selling apps on the App Store, which means millions of sales.
So, there's that.
It's not that "obvious" at all. Resolution is only ONE aspect of images, color information, contrast, etc is another. If you can trade noisy resolution for clearer color information and less distractive noise, that's a big plus.
And you can blow 1080p to cinema size screen (I know cause I have, and in fact, Philip Bloom has also done that, at the Skywalker ILM studios as a showcase) and it will be totally fine quality wise.
So, sort of like DNG for video color.
>The only viable reason to transcoding would be to give you some more headroom in the color grade, as 10-bit files have a little more adjustability in their color space.
10-bit files will only have "more adjustability in their color space" if the camera has indeed captured 10-bit info before transcoding. Else, those would just be wasted bits (literally, 2 bits of the 10-bit transcoded file's color info will be either zero or junk values).
> What's the advantage of decoding all the footage if Adobe Premiere Pro is built to optimize the cores so you can edit with Native footage without having to make all the codecs the same?
The advantage is that it will work faster, since this "just the same" is marketing bullshit from Adobe. There is, and always be a performance penalty on decoding demanding codecs on the fly, optimization or not.
> For cinema, a super 35 sensor is "full frame", for that format.
Depends on the cinema format. Not all cinema film stock is Super 35 or similar (for which this is true). Add anamorphic conversions to that and it can have totally different "full frame" and/or DoF