Expections for NAB '09

I think what many users fail to understand is that we as editing pros, account for a very little chunk of Apple's sales and revenue. The real money is in iTunes, iPods and iPhones obviously as they are mass appeal items with a worldwide consumer base in the billions, versus a perhaps a few hundred thousand professional editors worldwide.

At this point, FCS is more of a prestige product that fills out the line and lends Apple "pro" credibility much more than a significant revenue generating product worldwide. Unfortunately we are the little fish in the big sea. The professional video community does not have a lot of draw at Apple. They will keep updating and will keep improving but the days of trying to really bury Avid and Premier are done, mission accomplished so what is there to motivate Apple to really push the FCS development team and set some major deadlines for new code?

We, as media producers, have a tendency to not be aware that we are such a tiny portion of sales for a Canon, Sony or Panasonic worldwide in comparison to their mass appeal consumer products. We get frustrated that we are not waited on more, but that seems to be the way of the world.

Dan
 
Speaking as a Mac outsider, I'm wondering if Apple wants to get it's 64bit ducks in a row before overhauling the apps? I think when this happens, people will once again be blown away.
 
puredrifting said:
I think what many users fail to understand is that we as editing pros, account for a very little chunk of Apple's sales and revenue. The real money is in iTunes, iPods and iPhones obviously as they are mass appeal items with a worldwide consumer base in the billions, versus a perhaps a few hundred thousand professional editors worldwide.
Click to expand...

Yes they do ultimately make more on all the iPods and iPhones, but with a basic Mac Pro and Final Cut Studio you are spending at least $4,000+ while an iPhone is what, 300-400 bucks? They don't have to sell millions of Mac Pros and Final Cut Studio packages to hit sales in the hundreds of millions.

puredrifting said:
They will keep updating and will keep improving but the days of trying to really bury Avid and Premier are done, mission accomplished so what is there to motivate Apple to really push the FCS development team and set some major deadlines for new code?
Click to expand...

In essence, this is what scares me about Apple possibly loosing some ground. Maybe Adobe is going to attempt to do what Apple did 5 years or so ago with Final Cut, break into the high end pro market of big budget feature film, music video, and commercial post production. After Effects is already used by tons of FX houses, so why not make things easier by making Premiere a piece of that puzzle?

I happen to like Premiere, and hope that Adobe sticks with the idea of letting the end user choose to use it on either a Mac or a PC.
 
We had Adobe at the Los Angeles Final Cut Pro User Group many years ago, when Premier first went "Pro". They have been trying to get that foothold for many years already. I don't think that they will, it is too late. Avid and FCP are the standards for Pros, hobbyists use all of the other programs on the market. I personally think that even though there are lots of great editing apps on the PC and Mac, the worldwide market isn't THAT big and the two leaders have pretty much carved it all up, other than in closed environments like corporate. But if you are in entertainment, it's Avid #1 and FCP #2. I don't think that there is a #3 in entertainment.

In order to take market share from Avid or FCP, Premier would have to give such a superior set of tools and workflow over the other two leaders that it would be overhwhelming. And frankly, it is not. Premier is a good, solid app, nothing wrong with it, but they were late to the party. It has only been a few years since Premier was even considered a decent app for anyone. Back in the mid to late 90s, Premier was a joke, it crashed, had spotty timecode support, a lack of any sort of truly professional features. It's only been a viable pro level application since about 2003.

Avid has been pro level since day one and FCP, beginning at version 4.0 began to be viable and stable enough for professional use. Back in the FCP 3.0 and earlier days, I used to rent Avid systems because FCP was not stable enough for professional work. I wanted to edit client work on my FCP systems but I didn't trust it when budgets and deadlines were on the line. Thanks goodness Apple finally pulled it together.

The workflow with Photoshop and AE in particular are killer, but most video editors are fair to mediocre in Photoshop and the average video editor is intimated by AE. AE is one of the most killer apps ever written but when you see your animation guys working on comps 200 layers deep and see the interface and how you have to tweak keyframes, etc. it is a little bit much for many of us in comparison to less capable but far friendlier apps like Motion.

Unless Adobe can figure out how to steal marketshare from Avid and Apple, they will be relegated to the second tier of editing apps. It is pretty difficult to move all of Hollywood to new apps, it can take decades. That's why Avid still is used on a lot more professional editing than FCP. FCP has a lot more seats out there, but so what, Avid has the ones that matter.

Dan
 
So I take it that FCP is still gaining some footholds in Hollywood against Avid.

I tried Avid and never really liked it a whole lot. The Final Cut interface just works for me. Yes it is similar to Premiere's, but it is the little things that really set it apart for me.
 
Hi:

FCP and Avid in Hollywood seem to be largely grouped by genre. FCP owns trailers. FCP and Avid co-exist in cable, but Avid still owns most network. Avid also has a much larger share of features but FCP has made some significant inroads into big, A-level features as well. Just depends on the directors and the production company. The Coen Bros. have edited their past few films on FCP. Walter Murch has edited several large features on FCP, there are many others.

A friend of mine works at a production company that does the majority of shows for HGTV and they have something like 50 FCP bays there, plus many of their editors work with FCP from home on laptops.

FCP has really taken entertainment by storm compared to 4-5 years ago.

Dan
 
That is kinda what I've heard from various articles I've read over the last few years. For feature films, it seems to me that as more people become familiar with FCP, it will possibly even out and it will be down to the preference of the director and editor whether or not to go with Avid or Final Cut.

How much longer this will take I have no idea. I suppose it is sort of like Canon vs. Nikon. Each one has their loyal fans that can argue which company is better. And each of these two companies are going to be always battling it out, which ends up that they offer us the best product through competition. Of course, Avid has been around for much longer so it will take a while longer for Final Cut to reach a similar level of popularity in Hollywood.

Although, Final Cut still seems aimed at a larger base, not only features but event, corp and commercial production, etc. I've always thought of Avid as a program specifically designed to edit feature films, which originally I guess that is what is was made for.
 
To me, as a producer, they are just both tools. I don't really care which one is used to edit my shows. As an editor, I prefer FCP but I will concede that up until FCP 5.1.4, Avid was always more stable. The overall workflow with Soundtrack Pro 2, Motion, Compressor and DVDSP is superior for smaller and lower budgets where the editor need to do the motion graphics, sound mix, DVD authoring, etc.

The largest client that I do work for is all Avid but has been threatening to dump all of their Avids and go FCP, but so far, it hasn't happened. Many of their editors despise FCP and since they do the majority of the editing there, other than a few freelancers.

They are both tools and both work really well.

Dan
 
I want the same as last year, the Cineform recorder.

But as far as I know, they still working on it.

Talking about editing systems....

The featuritis kids today forget that some of the best films where edited on Steenbeck or Moviola.

mm_entertainment_image1.jpg



Frank
 
Last edited:
Maybe even FCS 2.5 will come out if there are major revisions to programs other than Final Cut Pro (like Color, for instance).
Click to expand...
I don't think that will happen. If Adobe and their CS Suite (or Sony Vegas, or MS Office?!) is any sort of indicator, we've come to the age where minor changes in some of the software apps count as a full blown upgrade in the vendor's eyes. In some of the CS progs for example, only minor cosmetic changes were made to the GUI. Actually, maybe only the packaging changed. So if Apple makes "major revisions" to Color, I'd imagine they would make take what modest changes they are adding to FCP, call it good, and ship as the full suite. But I don't see that happening either. Sorry if I sound jaded.

There's also a chance Shake 5 (4.5???) will be bundled with the next FCP suite.

I agree with Dan that FCP may mean the world to us, but is a fairly small division of Apple. Still, they know they have a profit making program that also helps sell their high end computers, so no end in sight for dumping it.

As to the original post, I don't think we'll see a Panasonic HVX 250 just yet. The HVX200a, 170 and HMC-150 are out and humming along just fine - great cameras with great features. I'm not exactly sure what updates we could see beyond that along these design/feature lines.

We already got a glimpse at the new JVC cameras, a small solid state AVCHD, and a more pro AVCHD cam that writes to SxS cards I believe.

Canon seems to NEVER make announcements at NAB, and I expect this year to be the same. However, you know they must be close to having a replacement for their lineup. I like the chances of seeing updates to the XL H1 and XH A1 - with the former writing to something like SxS or P2, and the latter writing AVCHD to SD cards.

Sony, who knows? They put a lot of stock into the EX-1 and I can't see them easily offering that same feature set in a camera that is $4,000. But who knows? As they did co-develop AVCHD with Panny, I expect them to start pushing it at NAB.

We've about seen the limit for what's going to come out in this spec line. Differences in cameras are incremental right now. Feature driven, ergonomics. The next big jumps will be:

1) Bigger chips (and mostly CMOS)
2) Greater exposure latitude, equaling film (like the Sony F24)
3) Interchangeable lenses that use 35mm SLR lenses (like the Canon and Nikon, but as vid cams)
4) Greater lower light capacity (like the EX-1, but better, cheaper)
5) Newer Codec handling:
. . a) Overcranking to 120fps in 1080p, even if chip driven (like Sony V1)
. . b) More data - a norm of 4:2:2, 4:4:4, or even RAW
6) Someone smart to finally come along and realize no one in their right mind wants a lens with "infinity spinner" focusing and order an outright ban on these. (Hey, I can hope!)

Basically look at what we have now, what's in the bigger guns, what we want, and start cutting costs.

I also expect a LOT of talk about Red and Scarlet, even with no delivery date yet in sight. I still think a lot of people are in for a big surprise whey they find out that Scarlet is a professional camera without the creature comforts of something like the HMC-150, and most suited as part of a modular system ($$$).
 
Yup, I agree with the RED thing. It's interesting, I spoke with an A-list director over the weekend who is in the midst of shooting a medium budget studio film. He is shooting his foreground plates for the green screen sequences on a Red One, his first experience with Red.

His words to me verbatim were, "...and I hope to never again cross paths with the RED One. It is a finicky, delicate piece of shi* and I can't wait to shoot with something else." And he hasn't even made it to post yet. This director has shot his classic films, of course, on 35mm but in recent years has shot features even on the Sony Z1, so he has run the whole gamut of levels of cameras from top to bottom.

A lot of people who think that they will be in video nirvana with the Scarlet will be in for a rude surprise when they shoot their first project with it. The RED workflow, IMHO, is a PITA for anyone and everyone except patient filmmakers who don't mind the convoluted workflow. We don't exist in a 4k world and won't for decades to the whole acquring on 4k thing is a waste, other than for a few select situations mainly having to do with VFX.

Dan
 
Boy Dan, I thought I was critical! :huh:

I think it's cool that Red is trying to push the envelope, and trying to cut prices down. I just think people don't understand how beta they are as a company, and that their gear is based on professional workflow and professional cameras. All the talk about Scarlet is great, but it's not in the same sphere as the HPX-170, EX-1, HD250, etc. that most shooters we know can buy, open the box, turn it on, and start shooting and getting decent footage. Then edit on any decent computer, and deliver. Red's cameras, all of them from Epic to One to Scarlet are not designed like that.
 
Right, and if you read the posts here and elsewhere, I would say 50% of them are from people who think you will be able to do exactly what you describe in your post with the Scarlet. I think RED is a really interesting company and I admire what they are doing. I have done exactly one project in the RED and overall, it was not a good workflow for me.

I have spoken with several editors and post supers who hate the camera as well because it is just a PITA to use the footage from. I do not have a lot of experience with it and perhaps it will change for the better but for me, I am one of those people who feel that having the BEST quality of image is wasted on most people anyway. Content rules over having the best gear, best picture, etc. Unless you are shooting for the big screen and very few of us are, shoot with anything you can get your hands on. If you are good, the talent shines through the lower resolution or deeper depth of field 1/3" look, etc.

Since I am not a feature filmmaker, the RED doesn't really appeal to me. For television, it is totally the wrong tool, nothing against it but shooting television at 4K is unnecessary. And if shooting at 1080 is all you need, why not use a much simpler, kinder and easier workflow like P2 or SxS?

Dan
 
I can't agree with you more on what makes good product: Content. I have repeated over and over on this and other forums, a really old saying:

It's the carpenter, not the tools.

We have long ago passed the line of "good enough". The HVX-200, HPX-170, HMC-150, HL-H1, XH-G1, XH-A1, V1u, Z7u, EX-1, EX-3, ProHD100, HD110, HD250 all take gorgeous looking footage, in the right hands. Over 99% of the audience that sees works produced on these won't even notice the lower res, deeper DOF, etc. if they are at all interested in the content.

Quality writing, good acting, smart direction, all showing compelling story telling. These are the marks of great productions in this field. Not 4k resolution, RAW codecs, or even shallow DOF. Sure, all of those are nice to have, and might make a subtle difference to some viewers, but they are of fractional importance compared to content.
 
I expect to wear out at least one pair of shoes at NAB this year
Very interesting ideas in this thread.
A.
 
I agree with you guys about content being the most important aspect of any film, followed by the actual skill and passion of the filmmaker and their crew. However, if someone who is good and has made some good films on their DVX or whatever affordable camera they decided to use, it is not that surprising that they might want what the Scarlet is offering... better DoF, variable frame rates (more than the HVX or EX1 offer), more resolution, etc.

Personally, for my filmmaking and personal creative projects what interests me is the more robust codec. I'm using an XH-A1 now, which is great but I would eventually like to move on to using a stronger codec and format that holds up to and is more flexible in post. The other things that I like about the Scarlet are the variable frame rates up to 120fps and the 2/3 sensor for better DoF than my current camera. I could get a 35mm DoF adapter, but I'm just not a fan of all the extra hoops I would have to jump through to properly use one. To me, the money I would spend on an adapter would be better put into beefing up my light kit or saving for the Scarlet itself. Now, once Canon or Nikon produce a fully manual kick-ass video DSLR, then that is a whole different story all together.

For my wedding/event videography, no I won't use a Scarlet except for maybe the odd slow motion shot here or there. To me the RED stuff is strictly for films, maybe some documentaries, music videos, and commercials. I suppose some TV shows, mainly hour long dramas or miniseries might use RED cameras as well.

But you're both right, for those of us that are still in the earlier stages of learning the craft, a RED camera might not be the best piece of gear at the moment. I don't expect that the lower priced 2/3 sensor Scarlets will be out for another year so that gives me some time to research and prepare for it. I don't see myself buying the 35mm sensor Scarlet, at least not in the next year. Maybe I can move up towards that someday?

For me the post side is the most nebulous and daunting aspect of the Scarlet. I still need to do a lot of studying of that side of the workflow before I totally understand and am sure I can do it. The good news is that in theory the post side of RED's products should only get better and simpler from here on out.
 
If you have not experienced the RED workflow, you should. It has a lot of flexibility and options but also makes you jump through a lot of hoops as well. I much prefer the P2 way of working. Perhaps by the time Scarlet is actually a camera that you can buy instead of an advertising gimmick, RED will have revised and streamlined the workflow.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top