Fcp 7!!!

Barry_Green said:
So get used to unwrapping, rewrapping, and transcoding.
Click to expand...

Political tool or not, I personally don't think this is that big of a deal. Generally, you are going to transcode anyway for delivery (whether delivering in flash, DVD, web, etc.).

And as far as having to rewrap to edit in FCP, where this is a problem is when you have very tight turn around times - and if it is that tight of a turn around time, it can't be that big of a project, and since it doesn't take that long to rewrap in Quicktime, I don't find this to be a deal breaker, unless it is something like 48 hour film fest where you can't even wait 5-10 minutes to go to the bathroom and get a snack.

In fact, by having to rewrap from the original media file format, it basically forces a copy, or BACKUP, of the digital files to be made (so now I have 2 copies - something I want to do anyway). So it's 2 birds with one stone.

Look - I'm not saying I wish they didn't support it native. I am just saying, I don't think this is that big of a deal, and a lot of companies have agendas with file formats, whether its Sony, Adobe, or Microsoft. And if I was running a big company, I probably would too. Besides, if there's one file format that I wouldn't mind seeing becoming standard, it would be Quicktime.
 
And that's the point -- everyone gets to decide whether it's an issue for them or not. But for those who have a problem with it, recognize that it's not going away. That's all I'm pointing out.
 
Jeez, I go to the mountains for a week and the ONE THING I have been waiting for happens while I'm gone.

Happy with the price cut. If it a sort of modular software package (upgrades being available after SL launches), that works for me.

I take it that there is no native RED support then?

EDIT: MacMall currently has it for $899
 
Last edited:
filmguy123 said:
Political tool or not, I personally don't think this is that big of a deal. Generally, you are going to transcode anyway for delivery (whether delivering in flash, DVD, web, etc.).

And as far as having to rewrap to edit in FCP, where this is a problem is when you have very tight turn around times - and if it is that tight of a turn around time, it can't be that big of a project, and since it doesn't take that long to rewrap in Quicktime, I don't find this to be a deal breaker, unless it is something like 48 hour film fest where you can't even wait 5-10 minutes to go to the bathroom and get a snack.

In fact, by having to rewrap from the original media file format, it basically forces a copy, or BACKUP, of the digital files to be made (so now I have 2 copies - something I want to do anyway). So it's 2 birds with one stone.

Look - I'm not saying I wish they didn't support it native. I am just saying, I don't think this is that big of a deal, and a lot of companies have agendas with file formats, whether its Sony, Adobe, or Microsoft. And if I was running a big company, I probably would too. Besides, if there's one file format that I wouldn't mind seeing becoming standard, it would be Quicktime.
Click to expand...

I haven't written here for a while and am jumping into this on the tail end, but it is a big deal that Apple makes the user encode everything for Quicktime. It might not be for a single editor, but if you manage a facility that pushes through hundreds of terabytes a month across ten or more editors believe me its a really big deal. This is a systemic problem that introduces way too much latency.

I think its very narrow minded of Apple to think they can force people to accept Quicktime as a platform that will need to support pedabytes of data. This is no-longer about the transition from analog to digital, its about the transition from serial digital to parallel data processing which will result in a mind blowing amount of data, much more than any single company can support.

Apple would be smart to open up or they will be left behind in a similar way that Sony was with betamax.
 
filmguy123 said:
Political tool or not, I personally don't think this is that big of a deal. Generally, you are going to transcode anyway for delivery (whether delivering in flash, DVD, web, etc.).

And as far as having to rewrap to edit in FCP, where this is a problem is when you have very tight turn around times - and if it is that tight of a turn around time, it can't be that big of a project, and since it doesn't take that long to rewrap in Quicktime, I don't find this to be a deal breaker, unless it is something like 48 hour film fest where you can't even wait 5-10 minutes to go to the bathroom and get a snack.
Click to expand...
Just because it's not a big deal for *you* doesn't mean it's not a big deal for *other people*, and how does quick turn around time equate to it being a small or unimportant project (not sure if you mean "small" as in "not a big deal" or "small" as in "not much footage")?


-A
 
Some people have a problem with rewrapping, and others don't.

The best part of the whole scenario is that everyone is free to choose what NLE and platform they wish.
 
Has anyone noticed if there are any additions to the filters? How about audio content for Soundtrack?

The same old jingles are getting stale, and it would be nice for a few new filters for a little eye candy.

Chadfish
 
JonathanLB said:
I'm 100% with Ted on this one...
Click to expand...

I agree with pretty much everything you say but ya lost me with ditching film...

Film still has a uniqueness to its image that has yet to be replicated fully by digital cinema. Sure, I believe one day film will be a thing of the past, but it's not there yet.

A good example is Public Enemies. Much of that film looked like a very low budget indie film. The lighting seemed off...especially in the night time shootout scenes. I'd go as far as saying that parts of the film looked downright awful. And this is probably the most recent digital motion picture release...and it doesn't help your case.

One day it will happen...but not for a while. 35mm will reign supreme in Hollywood for at least another 10-20 years.
 
Which reminds me, I've got to ebay my 35mm camera.

Yeah, film, beloved as it is, has only a few more years as the dominant acquisition medium for television. A bit longer for motion pictures. Much of what the ASC/PGA multi-camera test was about, was to educate the producers on the viability of today's digital acquisition methods.
 
Got and installed the update today. So far everything seems to be fine. FCP UI changed a bit, colors are slightly different and the fonts changed for the tabs like in the screenshots and videos on the Apple site; all the dialogs and tabs have a different feel as well. It's subtle. Also, the right click menus of all apps have a different looking font, it's more slender.
 
JesterJJZ said:
A good example is Public Enemies. Much of that film looked like a very low budget indie film. The lighting seemed off...especially in the night time shootout scenes.
Click to expand...

That's because Michael Mann doesn't know how to light anymore. If you light for film, then you will get pretty good results. Collateral is just poorly lit and don't even get me started on Miami Vice. :crybaby:
 
Last edited:
Ted Spencer said:
Also, according to blu-ray.com, ten days ago:

"A recent report from the Digital Entertainment Group (DEG) shows that sales of Blu-ray titles during the first six months of the year are up 91% - to $407M - compared to the first half of 2008. The increase in title sales has also affected sales of Blu-ray players, which are up 25% from the same period last year to 2M units."
Click to expand...

No offense, but what would you expect from a site named "blu-ray.com" to report?

From an article dated 6/22/09: http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/22/blu-ray-sales-are-stagnating-whats-to-blame/

"According to a new poll from Harris Interactive, although the sales of HDTVs has continued to climb, the overwhelming majority of Americans have not yet bought into the Blu-ray craze. The results of an April survey show that 93 percent of adults in this country still have not purchased a Blu-ray player, down only three percent since May of 2008.... Internationally, the news is no better."

I live in an affluent area, where fixer-upper homes still cost $500K, yet nobody I know has adopted BluRay, and local videographers, for the most part, haven't upgraded to HD cameras for that exact reason. And according to our local video rental owner, his store rents only 3 or 4 BluRays a night, versus 300 or so DVDs.
 
Carlos Corral said:
That's because Michael Mann doesn't know how to light anymore. If you light for film, then you will get pretty good results. Collateral is just poorly lit and don't even get me started on Miami Vice. :crybaby:
Click to expand...

Seriously- Public Enemies is not an example you cite for digital's emergence. Did you know a good chunk of that movie was shot on prosumer EX1 cameras because they got a bunch of them for free from Sony ? And this on a $100 million dollar movie that could have easily shot all RED, all F35 or all Genesis (or all 65mm IMAX for that matter) with a proper lighting kit and looked awesome. The 'digital look' of that movie was completely aesthetic choice- and some would argue misguided.

Instead I'd cite Knowing, The Book of Eli, Get Smart, 21, Superbad, etc all as much better examples where most folks don't even know they watched a digitally acquired movie.

Noah
 
PaulK said:
No offense, but what would you expect from a site named "blu-ray.com" to report?

From an article dated 6/22/09: http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/22/blu-ray-sales-are-stagnating-whats-to-blame/

"According to a new poll from Harris Interactive, although the sales of HDTVs has continued to climb, the overwhelming majority of Americans have not yet bought into the Blu-ray craze. The results of an April survey show that 93 percent of adults in this country still have not purchased a Blu-ray player, down only three percent since May of 2008.... Internationally, the news is no better."

I live in an affluent area, where fixer-upper homes still cost $500K, yet nobody I know has adopted BluRay, and local videographers, for the most part, haven't upgraded to HD cameras for that exact reason. And according to our local video rental owner, his store rents only 3 or 4 BluRays a night, versus 300 or so DVDs.
Click to expand...

Point taken.

But if only 1-7% of renters (or buyers) are interested in Blu-ray, why am I finding 65% availability (and rapidly increasing) on new movie titles? Also (to my eye) Blu-ray disc sections in places like BestBuy, at least here in NYC, are rapidly growing and pretty heavily patronized.

And while Blu-ray players were very expensive initially (my PS3 was a "great deal" at $700 two years ago, even without factoring in its gaming features), name brand entry level players are around $165 as of this writing (re: Amazon).

Lastly, I've read, correctly or otherwise, that Blu-ray is getting "adopted" by consumers faster than DVD did when it first came out. In my book that would pretty much kibosh the idea that it's been anything like a failure. Can anyone confirm or deny this claim?
 
Ted Spencer said:
Lastly, I've read, correctly or otherwise, that Blu-ray is getting "adopted" by consumers faster than DVD did when it first came out.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense. Figures don't lie, but liars can figure. I've seen those reports too, and they're grossly misrepresenting what's actually happening out there.

DVD is the fastest-adopted technology in history, over 50% of the homes in America had a DVD player within five years of the technology's introduction. The articles claiming that blu-ray is outpacing DVD are saying that PS3 sales should be added to those of dedicated Blu-Ray players. And when you do that, sure, it looks like Blu-Ray is taking off -- but the simple fact of the matter is, it isn't. It's a big ol' flop. All you have to do is look at the disc sales to see the true story, and to see as to whether all those PS3 buyers are buying them to use them as Blu-Ray players (hint: they aren't).

Look at the sales statistics. According to Nielsen VideoScan, currently 92% of titles sold are on standard-def DVD, and 8% are on Blu-Ray. Even among the very, very, very best-selling titles, like the #1 Blu-Ray title for the week of July 19th 2009 ("Mad Men: Season 2"), Blu-Ray accounts for only 21.73% of the discs sold; standard-def DVD is still 78.27%.

For the week ending 7/19/09, the total revenue of all disc sales reported was just over $139 million. Of that $139 million, only $11.18 million was from Blu-Ray, and standard DVD accounted for $127.89 million. That makes Blu-Ray's chunk of the pie a dismal 8.04%.

Blu-Ray has been on the market for over three years now. The first player was shipped in June of 2006. And it has an 8% market share on sold titles. By comparison, the first DVD player in the US was shipped in March 1997, and within four years sales of DVD discs surpassed sales of VHS tapes ($5.4 billion for DVD vs. $4.9 for VHS in 2001). So unless Blu-Ray has a massively super-skyrocketing leap from 8% market share to 51% market share in the next nine months, it's pretty safe to say that the Blu-Ray adoption rate pales in comparison to the DVD adoption rate.
 
Barry_Green said:
TFigures don't lie, but liars can figure.
Click to expand...

I also have to say that I am generally unimpressed with the commercial blu ray titles I've seen.

Except for the digital titles such as Happy Feet, etc., the other stuff is pretty bland.

We do like our stuff taken from a 200 or 170 and encoded to blu ray. That looks better.

But my clients when viewing a well encoded SD DVD and a blu ray disc from the same footage on the same set top and our Pioneer Elite can discern much of a difference at 10 feet.

Closer than that, yes -- blu ray is better.

For those that who claim I or they can't see, please don't. I'm just reporting what they say.

I've authored thousands of replicated SD DVDs from DVCProHD footage in the past, and this what they say about blu ray.
 
If Apple is trying to push everyone down to Quicktime, I expect one of two outcomes:

1. A *very* long series of low-intensity format wars (by 'low-intensity', I mean with no high media profile, I don't mean insignificant) while others in the electronics and IT industries try one alternative after another until, eventually, in some long-distant future, everyone agrees on a standard, which lasts for about 15 seconds before someone comes up with 'enhancements'. The ultimate product may or may not be QT, but it'll be a long time (and many versions of FC) before we see it.

2. Apple starts to lose serious ground as provider of choice because the others provide services and support that Apple won't, in case it hampers the QT effort. There are other guts out there, and they produce decent software and it can do the job as well as or better than FC. I don't say it's likely, but I do say it's a significant risk.

I actually think Steve's right about BR, but only because I don't think it'll be a long-term player. I think he's probably right that the long-term bet is mass storage/streaming like Apple TV.

But QT? I dunno - my crystal ball just clouded up.
 
I find that for me, the issue here isn't wether Blu-ray is here to stay, but wether Apple should be making a decision on the behave of its pro users in the first place.

Apple might not find Blu-ray a priority right now for whatever reason (they say because of high royalties), but that doesn't mean we pro users don't have clients that want Blu-ray products right now. Final Cut Studio is a video suite and by it's nature MUST support as many of the current standards as possible to make it a valuable product. Blu-ray IS a current standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top