View Full Version : Final Cut Pro Universal version now shipping
jeffyjones
03-29-2006, 02:59 PM
Thought you might like to know, if you've been eager to get a Macbook Pro, that the new fat binaries of FCP are shipping "within 24 hours" according to the Apple store. Specs suggest it will run on the Core Duo Mac Mini, though the video support is suspect for Motion.
aedude01
03-29-2006, 03:34 PM
Just saw this too, about Frackin time.... now I just need to track down an HVX for around 5,300...... Lerro was out when I called them..
Lee
Also, the "Late Breaking News" manual has been posted on the Apple site. It mentions a new "Remove duplicate frames" option for the P2 importer and that the installation media apparently also include the DVCPRO HD frame rate converter.
Sadly for us PAL chaps, no mention of 720p/50 in there, but I haven't given up hope just yet...it's all progress.
See for yourself at http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/Final_Cut_Pro_5.0_lbn_z.pdf
Anders Holck
03-29-2006, 04:13 PM
:(
"Good Things Come to Those Who Wait"
:crybaby:
Barry_Green
03-29-2006, 04:18 PM
HEY! Big news there is that FCP 5.1 (the new universal binary version) is supporting 1080/24PA properly!
HEY! Big news there is that FCP 5.1 (the new universal binary version) is supporting 1080/24PA properly!
yes! now all we need is mxf support! betcha a klondike bar it'll be on the next major update...:grin:
The Sarlacc
03-29-2006, 04:28 PM
yes! now all we need is mxf support! betcha a klondike bar it'll be on the next major update...:grin:
I'm willingly to bet when Apple releases its PRO version of FCP...it will be set up to be more of an AVID fighter...and mxf will most likely be native (ala Avid)
This is my guess only.
toke lahti
03-29-2006, 04:30 PM
So, can you have 720p25 sequences in 5.1?
And is 5.1 update free for Final Cut Studio 5 owners?
$49 upgrade for fcp 5 owners....
ropbo
03-29-2006, 04:34 PM
HEY! Big news there is that FCP 5.1 (the new universal binary version) is supporting 1080/24PA properly!
Hum, that makes me wonder ... should we still expect a version 6 at the NAB 2006 ? Or should we still expect a version that supports HDV 720/24p and/or HDV 1080/24F soon ?
Am not talking about the rumored 10 grand FCP Extreme ... but the FCP Pro Studio 6.0 people have been talking about.
Barry_Green
03-29-2006, 04:51 PM
As far as I know Apple has never publicly said anything about HDV 24p or 24F support, nor has anyone other than thinksecret commented about any proposed "final cut extreme".
As to whether there'll be an FCP6 at NAB, seems like it's still a good bet. They had to get 5.1 out ASAP, because none of the new imacs or macbooks could run FCP 5.0.4 at all. I don't think 5.1 precludes the possibility of FCP6 at NAB.
But, we'll find out in less than a month!
Anders Holck
03-29-2006, 04:59 PM
Actually FCP 5 and DVDSP installs and runs fine on the MacBook Pro, although it's pretty slow.
Justyn
03-29-2006, 06:42 PM
GOOD news.. Good news. Does anyone think they'll have the upgrades at Comp USA? They did before and it'd be sweet to just swing in and pick one up rather than ordering and all that Jazz. I don't think the apple store stocks upgrades... but I could be wrong. I know that Comp USA has in the past...
Man, I've got some cutting to do. I have 60 DVDs loaded with crap. Anyone experience problems loading and importing the data off a DVD? Should I drag the files to the harddisk first.. or just import off the DVDs?
Thanks ya'll and happy days are here!
Jan, I know you're behind 1080/24pa support on FCP... Please give us PAL users a hand and help lobby for PAL integration... PLEEEAAASEEE !
soarprod
03-29-2006, 07:05 PM
Recompiling FCS to run intel probably didnt take that much time to do, Getting it to run fast would take a little longer. I would imagine that most of the FCP resources are going to FC 6. And, a NAB announcement would mean Fall/Winter 06.
David Saraceno
03-29-2006, 07:30 PM
Just saw this too, about Frackin time.... now I just need to track down an HVX for around 5,300...... Lerro was out when I called them..
The MacBook Pros have only been shipping for about a month. Kinda wondering why this was such as big issue for some.
David Saraceno
03-29-2006, 07:31 PM
Hum, that makes me wonder ... should we still expect a version 6 at the NAB 2006 ? Or should we still expect a version that supports HDV 720/24p and/or HDV 1080/24F soon ?
Am not talking about the rumored 10 grand FCP Extreme ... but the FCP Pro Studio 6.0 people have been talking about.
Actually full point upgrades usually occur every other year.
Barry_Green
03-29-2006, 07:51 PM
According to wikipedia:
April 1999, FCP 1.0
March 2001, FCP 2
Dec. 2001, FCP 3
NAB 2003 FCP4
NAB 2004 FCP 4.5
NAB 2005, FCP 5
March 2006, FCP 5.1
I dunno what that says. Two version numbers in one year, followed by a full version every other year, but only a little .1 revision between NAB 2005 and March 2006... maybe we'll get FCP 5.5 next month?
jeffyjones
03-29-2006, 07:55 PM
I'm willingly to bet when Apple releases its PRO version of FCP...it will be set up to be more of an AVID fighter...and mxf will most likely be native (ala Avid)
Final Cut Pro Pro?
See, this is why I don't read Apple rumor sites. People get so wrapped up in the nonsense. I don't see any reason why Apple would ever introduce a more expensive version of FCP. There's no incentive to do so.
Back on topic though... what are the remaining coverage gaps then for HVX shooting modes in FCP? Does this cover it all?
Barry_Green
03-29-2006, 08:08 PM
I don't think FCP handles 1080/30p or 1080/24P with 2:3 pulldown, so there appear to still be a couple of gaps.
And, of course, the biggest gap of all -- the gulf, actually -- native MXF timeline support. So there's still plenty to look forward to at NAB with our hoped-for FCP6 or FCP 5.2 or, well, anything they'll give us... :)
myfriendimage
03-29-2006, 08:10 PM
I'm willingly to bet when Apple releases its PRO version of FCP...it will be set up to be more of an AVID fighter...and mxf will most likely be native (ala Avid)
This is my guess only.
hahahaha it is called Final Cut PRO
aquafox
03-29-2006, 10:59 PM
Why is native MXF editing such a big deal? I thought the Quicktime wrapping didn't do anything to the quality.
Why is native MXF editing such a big deal? I thought the Quicktime wrapping didn't do anything to the quality.
I think what we need is FCP to support MXF Wrapping back to MXF, so that we can have the files back to MXF, after editing.
darwinandpaine
03-30-2006, 12:19 AM
What about those of us still on PowerPC machines? Obviously, I don't need the Universal Binaries, but do we get the 5.1 upgrade (and benefits) free? I just checked Software Update and there's nothing there for any of my FCStudio products?
GlassSidewalk
03-30-2006, 12:53 AM
What about those of us still on PowerPC machines? Obviously, I don't need the Universal Binaries, but do we get the 5.1 upgrade (and benefits) free? I just checked Software Update and there's nothing there for any of my FCStudio products?
It's not free, it's a $49 crossgrade. You need to send in your old Install Disks and they will send you new ones. Cool thing about the crossgrade is if you only have the stand alone FC Papp you can get the complete studio for $99 instead of the $49. I'd jump on that if you don't have the studio.
Complete details of the bug fixes in 5.1 can be found here:
http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/Final_Cut_Pro_5.0_lbn_z.pdf
I guarantee there will not be any upgrades to the non UB FCP, so if you want to move forward, send in the disks.
Barry_Green
03-30-2006, 01:21 AM
Why is native MXF editing such a big deal? I thought the Quicktime wrapping didn't do anything to the quality.
Because the mxf unwrapping/quicktime wrapping is a goofy workaround that really calls into question the whole tapeless workflow.
Here's an example: say you're shooting your masterpiece independent feature film, shooting an hour of 1080/24P footage a day, that's maybe 20 card offloads per day. Say you do that for three weeks. 6 days a week. 6 x 20 = 120 cards per week, 360 cards total. You offload using a laptop, saving the footage on external drives. That's 1.5 terabytes of data.
Now you go to the edit suite. If you're on Canopus (which supports MXF files) what do you do? You plug in the drive and start editing. Immediately. All 360 cards worth are immediately available to you -- just drop 'em on the timeline. Any file, from any card, is immediately accessible. JUST START EDITING.
But with Apple, not so fast. First, you'd better have another 1.5 terabytes of storage somewhere, because you're going to have to duplicate all the files when copying and converting them to quicktimes. Second, you have to go through one by one, telling it to import the P2 files and convert them to quicktimes on the capture scratch disk. How long will that take? 4 minutes per card? 360 cards? Three 8-hour days of importing? It's like digitizing tape all over again... we're not supposed to have to do that!
Now, let's pretend that you were diligent in your shooting. You used the metadata, and you had your script supervisor annotate the metadata in the P2 Viewer, logging the take name, the scene number, the location, whether it was a good take or not, annotating notes for the editor in the metadata. On Canopus, all that info is immediately available to you -- just click and it pops up. You can search for clips, search for scene and take numbers, and all that is available.
On Apple? Gone. Well, not "gone", it's still on your source drive somewhere, and if you want to go through the hassle of revealing your clip in the finder so you can find the name of it and then go search through the 360 "contents" folders to find where the metadata file is, you can probably dig up the file and view it.
But why should you have to? It's tedious, and inefficient, and unnecessary.
With Canopus, if you're doing a small project (like a quick news story maybe) you could plug a P2 card in, and import the files straight to the timeline, edit your piece right from the card, and write the file back out to the card, ready to air. Never has to touch the hard disk at all.
With Apple? You can do none of those things.
If Apple would add MXF support, it would be the nearly perfect editing platform for HVX footage. Canopus has shown us how it should be done, how it could be. I want it that way on the Mac too. So do you. If you haven't seen how it works, you're missing out.
I appreciate all that Apple's done, they really have a nearly perfect solution here. But it's so close, yet so far away. Native MXF support would change all that. It would be IDEAL.
As it is, when I'm doing something small & quick, I reach for Edius before I reach for the Mac's power switch already. And I don't even know how to run Edius yet.
Barry Green posted a thread long before with a title similar to this:
"How you can request Apple to support Mxf Files in FCP"
Here's the link to Apple's Final Cut Pro feedback page.
http://www.apple.com/feedback/finalcutpro.html
Send them a mail explaining the hassle of non-mxf support, and while you're at it, tell them to put 720p 50 support in the next update! (5.1.1?)
Interesting read, and who does not want more speed and ease during work? I think Apple needs to think this over, the tapeless systems and workflow differ from the old.
MXF is here to stay, broadcast stations and archive systems are based on it, new tapeless approach. But it is not all sunshine. Like MPEG with its variants (see HDV by Sony and JVC) MXF files also differ, one product may not be accepted by another product without data mapping or modification. There are more than 10 formalized structural variants of MXF, called OPīs.
While many rules apply to all OPīs, there is freedom for companies to assemble it somewhat differently. Successful MXF interchange between two products depends on the relative compatibility of their MXF implementations. So MXF is not a panacea, some vendors like Canopus or Avid use it to their advance right now. (AVID is slowly drifting away from its own OMF files).
Quicktime itself is a dynamic container format, it is hiding all forms of data, structures en metadata, Apple is building Quicktime during the years by adding new features and is using the container to convert, use and communicate with other software, and tools. Once it is QT you can bring it into editing, grading, etc etc . It is core business too, so they need a solution for this 'unwrapping rewrapping thing', and give us more speed and a compatible solution with all the strengths QT already has.
Metadata implantation is one of that nonconform structures that needs to be discussed over. Ever tried to rebuild a database and spend hours work dealing with the with of columns, how to devise them and where you can find them?
aedude01
03-30-2006, 08:14 AM
I've just been waiting to buy a mac till they released the universal version, I'm glad they did, now I can make the switch :-)
jeffyjones
03-30-2006, 08:28 AM
Thanks for the post, Barry. That certainly gives Apple the business case of why they should provide that support. Hopefully they're listening.
xray makes some important points to, including one that really is core to Apple, in that QT really is a platform that they've been pushing for all of time. In that respect, I've often wished that everything would conform to QT, not vice versa, but that's a pipe dream.
Avid support works, but it's really kind of awkward. And I'm just so annoyed at the fact that Xpress Pro HD only works right on Intel processors with certain video drivers. It's completely annoying. Although, I guess before I act on any new purchases, I need to find out (perhaps in another thread) what the HVX recording format gaps are that remain in Avid (since 5.2.3).
snarton
03-30-2006, 08:39 AM
The Final Cut Studio 5.1 lists "Mac OS X version 10.4.4 or later" as a requirement, but OS X is only up to 10.4.3 right now. Will we be able to run FCS when we get it?
--Jeremy
robweiner
03-30-2006, 08:42 AM
[QUOTE=Barry_Green
But with Apple, not so fast. First, you'd better have another 1.5 terabytes of storage somewhere, because you're going to have to duplicate all the files when copying and converting them to quicktimes. Second, you have to go through one by one, telling it to import the P2 files and convert them to quicktimes on the capture scratch disk.
Barry, why would you do it that way? I'd bring a Powerbook with large external drive to the set, and import the cards directly into FCP the first time.
I do agree however that MXF support would be great, especially the ability to retain all metadata.
David Saraceno
03-30-2006, 09:27 AM
The Final Cut Studio 5.1 lists "Mac OS X version 10.4.4 or later" as a requirement, but OS X is only up to 10.4.3 right now. Will we be able to run FCS when we get it?
--Jeremy
OS X is now at 10.4.5.
icicle22
03-30-2006, 09:33 AM
Can anyone find out if the upgrade path from FC express HD still exists? we have an extra copy of Express HD here are work and previously I could find an upgrade on Apples Site to FCP studio for $599 or so. Now that they have come with the Universal 5.1 there seems to be no upgrade path from HD express anymore. The shame is I have been holding off so I would have to upgrade 2 times....now it looks like I cannot upgrade at all!!!
Justyn
03-30-2006, 09:34 AM
I sent some feedback to apple.. thanks for the link. I had to convert some footage over yesterday.. it was easy to do, but a pain as far as the time it took and also the extra drive space....and no metadata... This just plain sucks.
One card took almost 10 minutes to inport. That's like digitizing.. which I never want to have to spend the time doing... Last night I had to shoot 4x3 DV with the camera.. and that was horrible too. Man, it's great to be spoiled ...
snarton
03-30-2006, 09:35 AM
David,
Thanks for the correction. The confusion arose because Apple's OS X web page and Apple Store page both list 10.4.3 as the current version. I see now you can download an update to get to 10.4.5.
--Jeremy
David Saraceno
03-30-2006, 09:37 AM
the boxed version is at 10.4.3.
remember it is always best to download the combo update
GlassSidewalk
03-30-2006, 12:03 PM
Can anyone find out if the upgrade path from FC express HD still exists? we have an extra copy of Express HD here are work and previously I could find an upgrade on Apples Site to FCP studio for $599 or so. Now that they have come with the Universal 5.1 there seems to be no upgrade path from HD express anymore. The shame is I have been holding off so I would have to upgrade 2 times....now it looks like I cannot upgrade at all!!!
I don't see express on this page
http://www.apple.com/universal/crossgrade/
But I'd give them a call and ask anyway..
R Gale
03-30-2006, 01:06 PM
Can anyone find out if the upgrade path from FC express HD still exists? ....now it looks like I cannot upgrade at all!!!
If you can get your hands on an individual Soundtrack Pro, or Motion 2, or DVD studio 4 (try eBay) you can then upgrade to the full suite for $199. Would still be a lot cheaper than retail. ($1,300) :)
icicle22
03-30-2006, 01:16 PM
I have a full version of DVD studio 4 that we used to upgrade our current version of FCP. Can I use it again? In the past (it's been awhile) we installed DVD studio 4 and installed FCP 5 and it automatically installed and serialized without a hitch.
The Sarlacc
03-30-2006, 04:40 PM
Final Cut Pro Pro?
I don't see any reason why Apple would ever introduce a more expensive version of FCP. There's no incentive to do so.
You don't???
A true Avid fighter. That's why.
The Sarlacc
03-30-2006, 04:41 PM
hahahaha it is called Final Cut PRO
lol, the new high end "professional" version is rumored to be called Final Cut Extreme.
mcgeedigital
03-30-2006, 04:45 PM
You don't???
A true Avid fighter. That's why.
Unless they fix thier media management Avid will not be losing any sleep.
And yes I have both.
The Sarlacc
03-30-2006, 04:46 PM
Why is native MXF editing such a big deal? I thought the Quicktime wrapping didn't do anything to the quality.
I'll tell you why...
I had the director of a short I just on the HVX buy a 160gb HD....should be more then enough...OK, we shot the film and it took up 80gb of the drive. It should leave me plenty of room for editing...
Except that rest of the space gets completely eaten up by the quicktime conversion. Thankfully, in order to keep a master set of MXF files...I just burned all 80gb...yeah you heard me, 80gb to DVD...because the director couldnt afford another HD.
Its just one of those extra step pain in the asses that could be avoided...but at least I know for next time...lots of storage right from the start.
Avid doesn't have this because of native MXF support....So, it makes sense for Apple to come out with very high end version of their software, which will truly compete with Avid....because as much as I love FCP...it has never really been a real avid fighter, not in the professional filmmaking world.
The Sarlacc
03-30-2006, 04:48 PM
Unless they fix thier media management Avid will not be losing any sleep.
And yes I have both.
No arguements from me on that one...see the last sentence of my post right after yours.
R Gale
03-30-2006, 06:49 PM
...as much as I love FCP...it has never really been a real avid fighter, not in the professional filmmaking world.
FCP is steadily gaining ground.
the list of features cut on FCP grows longer each day:
Cold Mountain, George Washington, Gunner Palace, Intolerable Cruelty, Napoleon Dynamite, Spellbound, Super-Size Me
Open Water, The Rules of Attraction
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, The Ladykillers, Corpse Bride, Jarhead
Dreamer, etc etc. ...(list from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro))
Avid is gradually losing ground... In a very smart move, Apple's making sure FCP is in most of the schools & film schools, offering big academic discounts.
Most of the filmmakers of tomorrow will have gotten their start with FCP...
The Sarlacc
03-30-2006, 07:08 PM
FCP is steadily gaining ground.
the list of features cut on FCP grows longer each day:
Cold Mountain, George Washington, Gunner Palace, Intolerable Cruelty, Napoleon Dynamite, Spellbound, Super-Size Me
Open Water, The Rules of Attraction
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, The Ladykillers, Corpse Bride, Jarhead
Dreamer, etc etc. ...(list from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro))
Avid is gradually losing ground... In a very smart move, Apple's making sure FCP is in most of the schools & film schools, offering big academic discounts.
Most of the filmmakers of tomorrow will have gotten their start with FCP...
George Washington was one of the first features cut on FCP...And they had their fair share of problems because of it...I was on the camera crew...
The alma mater from which myself and everyone one from GW has made a deal with Apple and pretty much gone to FCP...
One of my friends was an FCP consultant on Cold Mountain...and they hated the transition.
FCP is gaining ground...but its not there, its not a true full blown Avid fighter in the professional world.
My hope is the rumors of "Extreme" are true, and it does give apple that winning blow.
unfiltered
03-30-2006, 08:23 PM
If you can get your hands on an individual Soundtrack Pro, or Motion 2, or DVD studio 4 (try eBay) you can then upgrade to the full suite for $199. Would still be a lot cheaper than retail. ($1,300) :)
One better is the fact that you can even upgrade/crossgrade the ACADEMIC versions of those apps, too, for $199, and get the FULL retail version of Final Cut Studio 5.1.
R Gale
03-30-2006, 09:07 PM
My hope is the rumors of "Extreme" are true, and it does give apple that winning blow.
I agree. (never saw George Washington... I should check it out. btw, I read about the Cold Mountain editing experience in this excellent book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0735714266/sr=8-1/qid=1143777878/ref=sr_1_1/102-8705631-4363311?%5Fencoding=UTF8))
I'm just happy that P2 works as good as it does in FCP. Everything is so new... I hope the new Universal FCP isn't too buggy, 'cause I just ordered the upgrade...
One better is the fact that you can even upgrade/crossgrade the ACADEMIC versions of those apps, too, for $199, and get the FULL retail version of Final Cut Studio 5.1.
Really? Man that IS a good deal! :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
unfiltered
03-31-2006, 02:43 AM
I agree. (never saw George Washington... I should check it out. btw, I read about the Cold Mountain editing experience in this excellent book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0735714266/sr=8-1/qid=1143777878/ref=sr_1_1/102-8705631-4363311?%5Fencoding=UTF8))
I'm just happy that P2 works as good as it does in FCP. Everything is so new... I hope the new Universal FCP isn't too buggy, 'cause I just ordered the upgrade...
Really? Man that IS a good deal! :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
Yeah, I had to double check the fine print to be sure. This has caused the academic versions of Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro 4, and Motion 2 on eBay to go for 25-50% more than what they originally sold for.
Still, paying $400 for an academic copy of Motion 2, then the additional $199 for the FCS upgrade, it's still almost $400 cheaper than my NBC discount ($1080) for the full retail of FCS! For anyone wanting to pick up a Mac for the intent of using Final Cut, this deal is "giving" you a virtual $700 credit towards a G5 or MacBook Pro.
jeffyjones
03-31-2006, 07:41 AM
You don't???
A true Avid fighter. That's why.
You're not answering the question. Why does Apple need to sell a six-figure plus version of FCP to compete with any Avid product? There are already a limited number of feature films being cut on it, so how does a higher priced version make them more "competitive" with Avid? What do they really need to offer that they don't already (besides media management, which frankly I don't think is all that great in Avid either), and why should it cost more?
mcgeedigital
03-31-2006, 08:14 AM
One better is the fact that you can even upgrade/crossgrade the ACADEMIC versions of those apps, too, for $199, and get the FULL retail version of Final Cut Studio 5.1.
Not in practice it doesn't:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=50214&page=3
mcgeedigital
03-31-2006, 08:16 AM
You're not answering the question. Why does Apple need to sell a six-figure plus version of FCP to compete with any Avid product? There are already a limited number of feature films being cut on it, so how does a higher priced version make them more "competitive" with Avid? What do they really need to offer that they don't already (besides media management, which frankly I don't think is all that great in Avid either), and why should it cost more?
You can't edit 2k and 4k images in REAL TIME on an Avid. Supposedly the Extreme version of FCPro can.
The Sarlacc
03-31-2006, 09:51 AM
You're not answering the question. Why does Apple need to sell a six-figure plus version of FCP to compete with any Avid product? There are already a limited number of feature films being cut on it, so how does a higher priced version make them more "competitive" with Avid? What do they really need to offer that they don't already (besides media management, which frankly I don't think is all that great in Avid either), and why should it cost more?
Aside from from Mcgee already said...FCP wasn't original designed to edit major motion pictures, avid was. So, all the features that have been cut on FCP have had to find work arounds to certain issues (like laying back to 24fps back in the original days.)
No one said it was going to be a 6 figure system, where you get those numbers is beyond me. Try like 10g for the software.
Despite the fact that people are trying to use FCP to cut features today...Most professional editors still prefer Avid. And apple hasn't done anything to change their minds.
Look at the editors who have cut features on FCP...The bigger names like Walter Murch on Cold Mountain...Then find out if he used FCP again on his next feature, or went back to Avid. I think a question like is much important then telling me features are using fcp.
jessecoane
03-31-2006, 09:59 AM
Walter murch did use FCP on his next feature "Jarhead"
jesse
The Sarlacc
03-31-2006, 10:02 AM
Walter murch did use FCP on his next feature "Jarhead"
jesse
That's a good sign then isn't it. ;) Because I know he had a bitch of a time on Cold Mountain.
jeffyjones
03-31-2006, 11:02 AM
What do you mean you can't edit real time?
recon007jf
03-31-2006, 11:09 AM
I'm going to respond to this thread the way "others" seem to respond when folks are complaining in any way about Panasonic. Hey! Why is every one giving poor Apple a hard time?
I mean it's so hard to make good software, we should just be happy that they make it at all and just shut up and not complain. Who are we to complain? We are just paying customers, what do we know really?
Apple is just so wonderful to make a product like Final Cut Pro, we are insulting them to even complain about things like workflow issues. Let's just leave them alone and not play the "Blame Game". Just because you pay for a product docent mean you have a right to complain about it.
(smell the sarcasm)
The Sarlacc
03-31-2006, 11:15 AM
Who is complaining?
I think most of us own FCP ( I do) and love it, but it's not up to the big boy leagues yet. Avid has had that market for far too long. And apple is catching up to them, they arent there yet.
JMLang
03-31-2006, 04:45 PM
You can't edit 2k and 4k images in REAL TIME on an Avid. Supposedly the Extreme version of FCPro can.
Then what's the Avid DS Nitris for?
unfiltered
03-31-2006, 05:20 PM
Not in practice it doesn't:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=50214&page=3
I hate to rain on your parade, but the guy that had the problem tried to upgrade BEFORE Apple's announcement this week.
It states VERY CLEARLY in the upgrade form that the academic versions ARE upgradeable. It has been Apple's policy in the past that academic versions were not upgradeable. That changed this week.
R Gale
03-31-2006, 07:22 PM
That's a good sign then isn't it. ;) Because I know he had a bitch of a time on Cold Mountain.
I was at a an LAFCPUG meeting a few months ago which had Walter Murch as a guest speaker.
He said editing Jarhead on FCP went really smoothly. Footage was transferred from Super35 to offline on DVCProHD (hey, good format! :thumbsup: ). According to him, the only real thing left for Apple to do is allow exporting of OMF files with keyframe (volume change) data in tact, to export to a sound house with Pro Tools. (FCP can export OMF, but not with the volume changes). The workaround is you have to use Automatic Duck (http://www.automaticduck.com/products/pefcp/), which works fine. Other than that workaround being required, he said cutting a major studio feature on Final Cut was superior to Avid, because for the same budget as for one avid system, they had four full-blown FCP systems, working at the same time.
Also, he said that because the latest FCP supports 24-bit audio, his audio edits in FCP become THE final audio. FCP is poised to kick avid off the throne.
k2director
03-31-2006, 09:59 PM
Sarlacc, you keep saying Final Cut isn't ready for the big leagues, but why is not ready? Please give some real specifics, not just vague, unqualified statements.
Old habits die hard. FInal Cut's acceptance in the film world has a lot less to do with its feature set than the fact that Avid has simply been the standard for a long time. Editors know it. Post production supervisors know it. Producers know it, etc. And people tend to stick with what they know, until there's a VERY compelling reason to switch.
In a little over 5 years, Final Cut has gone from a new product to cutting major features. It's made remarkable progress, and it CAN cut "professional" features very competently. But again, old habits die hard. People who have known Avid for their entire careers are likely to stay with Avid, if it still gets the job done. And that's not a failing of Final Cut, it's simply how mindshare and market forces work...
Teeck
04-01-2006, 12:10 AM
I have used both and the media managment isn't that bad on FCP. That is the only thing that avid has against the Fcp SOFTWARE. I am currently cutting my film on FCP and I have about 17 hours+ with about 2000 clips and i'm not havng any problems. It's a matter of preference, I don't like how avid has its own closed type of workflow. FCP is more open. Basic and complex editing is pretty much the same but for doing anything more like putting effects ohh god avid is like 10 years behind and the interface is dated. Try putting more than 1 effect and editing its parameters, you have to nest....its a really slow workflow. You can do the same on each, give me one MAJOR thing you cant do in FCP, beacuse it is being used for PROFESSIONAL features and the list will grow. Ohh and you get FCP Studio which has very powerful tools! And you shouldnt compare the $1600 AVID system but the higher end one with Final Cut.
The Sarlacc
04-01-2006, 12:13 AM
Sarlacc, you keep saying Final Cut isn't ready for the big leagues, but why is not ready? Please give some real specifics, not just vague, unqualified statements.
Old habits die hard. FInal Cut's acceptance in the film world has a lot less to do with its feature set than the fact that Avid has simply been the standard for a long time. Editors know it. Post production supervisors know it. Producers know it, etc. And people tend to stick with what they know, until there's a VERY compelling reason to switch.
In a little over 5 years, Final Cut has gone from a new product to cutting major features. It's made remarkable progress, and it CAN cut "professional" features very competently. But again, old habits die hard. People who have known Avid for their entire careers are likely to stay with Avid, if it still gets the job done. And that's not a failing of Final Cut, it's simply how mindshare and market forces work...
I think you nailed it...old habits die hard...and most of hollywood is invested in Avid. Its changing, slowly. I never said FCP wouldn't dominate...I hope that is does.
And I think R Gale's post about Murch's thougts tell me things have changed. I only have the input of my friends who are professional editors. I do have FCP5 but I avoid editing at all costs...my place is with cameras.
BUT...not everyone has FCP5 either....in fact many people havent invested in upgrading...its like Avid...you go to hollywood post facilities and many of them are actually running older versions.
The change is coming...its just not there yet.
mcgeedigital
04-03-2006, 09:47 AM
I hate to rain on your parade, but the guy that had the problem tried to upgrade BEFORE Apple's announcement this week.
It states VERY CLEARLY in the upgrade form that the academic versions ARE upgradeable. It has been Apple's policy in the past that academic versions were not upgradeable. That changed this week.
Hey no problem, I'm glad I'm wrong!
jeffyjones
04-03-2006, 01:00 PM
By the way... Apple says don't try to run FCP on a new Mini...
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303470
R Gale
04-03-2006, 01:35 PM
By the way... Apple says don't try to run FCP on a new Mini...
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303470
Yeah, right, an intel core duo processor, 4 times faster than a G4 1.6GHz, is incapable of handling FCP?
That's hilarious.
They just don't want the minis to hurt their sales of bigger systems, so they built in this "incompatibility." It's insulting.
All it would probably take would be a minor tweak of one line of code to make it work. (maybe not Motion, because of the graphics card required, but certainly FCP could work with this processor) I predict someone will find a way around this b.s.
snarton
04-03-2006, 01:58 PM
I just got the Final Cut Studio Universal upgrade in the mail. (I mailed in my FCP 4 install DVD a couple of weeks ago.) I was disappointed that Apple sent me only the install DVDs and a brief booklet on installation procedures but no printed documentation on the appications. On one hand, I don't have much of a basis for complaining because I went from FCP 4.5 to all the apps in FCS 5.1 for a measly $200. The books that come with the retail version of FCS probably cost Apple half that amount to print. But on the other hand, it's going to be a pain in the neck to learn three new applications from scratch by reading on-screen documentation. The pictures of FCS on the Apple website always show that big black box o' books, and there was no indication on the upgrade form or website that I would get a discs-only product. Before everyone points this out to me, I'll say a second time that I know this is a small quibble given the price I paid for the upgrade.
--Jeremy
Barry_Green
04-03-2006, 02:03 PM
Yeah, right, an intel core duo processor, 4 times faster than a G4 1.6GHz, is incapable of handling FCP?
The "hilarious" part is if anyone thinks a core duo is going to be 4 times faster than the G4 was, especially when running something like FCP.
Already FCP on a 1.33ghz G4 so thoroughly smokes my 2.66ghz P4 when playing DVCPRO-HD footage that it's just preposterous. I'm talking full-frame-rate, full-screen playback on the G4, vs. 2fps on the P4.
There's no way a core duo is going to be 4 times faster than that. They may have found some isolated benchmark where the core duo is 4x faster than a G4 on that specific benchmark, but no way no how will it be 4x faster when running FCP.
jeffyjones
04-03-2006, 02:04 PM
They just don't want the minis to hurt their sales of bigger systems, so they built in this "incompatibility." It's insulting.
I wouldn't be that quick to judge. Seriously, video hardware isn't just for making pretty 3D. Even Avid is picky about the video hardware and driver. That Intel video chip they're using doesn't exactly have the reputation for being strong in any area.
As soon as someone edits HD on a Mini with FCP and posts something about it, I'll be sold.
R Gale
04-03-2006, 02:11 PM
There's no way a core duo is going to be 4 times faster than that. They may have found some isolated benchmark where the core duo is 4x faster than a G4 on that specific benchmark, but no way no how will it be 4x faster when running FCP.
You're right, it's not 4X faster. According to this Apple page (http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intelcoreduo.html), the benchmark for a Core Duo MacBook pro rendering HDV1080i60 footage in FCP is 2.1 times faster than a 1.67GHz G4 Powerbook.
Over twice as fast. Still darn impressive.
R Gale
04-03-2006, 02:24 PM
That Intel video chip they're using doesn't exactly have the reputation for being strong in any area.
You're overlooking something. That Intel chip is also in the new MacBook Pro, which is now the machine of choice for the best and Fastest FCP performance of any Mac system!!! Granted the Intel chip in the Macbook starts at 1.83GHz, and the Intel chip in the Mini is 1.66GHz, but the Mini is still way faster than a G4. Something's fishy.
As soon as someone edits HD on a Mini with FCP and posts something about it, I'll be sold.
So will I. :)
toke lahti
04-03-2006, 03:30 PM
That Intel chip is also in the new MacBook Pro...
Nope, macbook has ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics processor, not some lame intel graphics and that's what counts in this case. CPU's in both intel macs toasts any g4 from last millenium any time...
Barry_Green
04-03-2006, 04:06 PM
You're right, it's not 4X faster. According to this Apple page (http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intelcoreduo.html), the benchmark for a Core Duo MacBook pro rendering HDV1080i60 footage in FCP is 2.1 times faster than a 1.67GHz G4 Powerbook.
Over twice as fast. Still darn impressive.
Well, again, I'll believe it when I see it.
Apple has quite a challenge in front of them, telling people for years about the superiority of the PowerPC system and then having to backtrack and somehow sell Intel PCs to that same core group. So I am not surprised at the proclamations they're making, but with my experience on the PC, and seeing what a lowly Mac can do... I dunno, I'm not buying these benchmarks.
First tests show that a dual-core Intel iMac is slightly faster than the previous G5 iMac, in most cases 10% to 30% faster.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/features/imaclabtest1/index.php
First tests of the dual-core Intel Mac Mini show it being about 40% faster than the 1.42GHz G4 Mac Mini.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/03/reviews/macmini/index.php
Sure there are some isolated cases where the new one blows the old one away, but I think anyone expecting that their new Intel Mac is going to be 4x faster than the old one is going to be quite disappointed, that's all.
spunknoid
04-03-2006, 05:13 PM
Prior to joining with IBM, IBM was the evil company that Apple was "battling" against "for the rest of us". (Remember the 1984 Super Bowl commercial?)
Apple had to join forces with IBM (Power Chips) to fight the evil Windows/Intel (Wintel) combination back in 91. Both companies were trying to keep Microsoft at bay and shift market focus back to hardware from software.
Apple realizes that by now converting to Intel, they now become more mainstream. IMHO I think they secretly hope that people will modify Windows to run on their machines. They will get the best of both worlds. They will keep the Apple die hards in the fold and then have the billions of Intel users now considering a MAC instead of a Dell.
Once again Apple will change an old enemy to a new friend and partner.
So it should not surprise anyone that Apple picked the most optimimized tests to show a HUGE difference between the new Intel chips and the old Power chips.
Should be interesting to watch.
R Gale
04-03-2006, 06:28 PM
Nope, macbook has ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics processor, not some lame intel graphics and that's what counts in this case. CPU's in both intel macs toasts any g4 from last millenium any time...
I didn't realize the Intel graphic chip was that weak. According to the specs (http://www.apple.com/macmini/whatsinside.html), it can drive a 1920 x 1200 DVI display... but I guess I didn't expect a machine with such an uber-fast processor to be paired with a low performance graphics card. It's a shame... seems they could've made the Mini work with FCP, but chose not to.
R Gale
04-03-2006, 06:33 PM
Well, again, I'll believe it when I see it.
I suppose all benchmarks used to hype a new product should be taken with a grain of salt. It will be interesting to see first hand how fast the Macbook really performs.
You all need to update today to MAC OSX 10.4.6, Apple celebrates its 30 years, lets wait for the quadra intels in our new PowerMacs and see... Not so long ago Apple claimed the G5 to be 2x faster than any Intel, they are changing fast.
unfiltered
04-06-2006, 01:25 AM
Hey no problem, I'm glad I'm wrong!
And I hope I didn't come across as an ass. I read my post later and thought "that was a little harsh, Corey!" :)