Ted Spencer
Veteran
Thanks for the info, Barry.
Fcp 7!!!
- Thread starter RicFic
- Start date
Thanks for the info, Barry.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
This actually the good news (and I've found the same thing). HD acquisition, even on low-end pro HD camcorders like the HVX can make *hugely* better looking SD DVDs than native SD acquisition does, even when it's from the same camera.
Sure, a Blu-ray will look better, but the difference isn't as dramatic as the above is.
I'm just greedy I guess - I want the best picture quality even if Joe 6-Pack doesn't always see the difference. That's why we're professionals, right?
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
I agree that Apple should support BR, but I think that for the average consumer we have reached a point of diminishing returns in terms of video resolution. I know lots of people who have plopped down 50-100 bucks for an uprezzing DVD player. They probably wouldn't mind spending an extra hundred or so for a BR player, but they are not going to re-stock their currently library of DVDs with BR discs when, for the average person, the difference isn't enough to worry about.
The popularity of DVDs over VHS had as much to do with convenience (no rewinding), features (commentary, BTS, etc), and durability (no more chewed up tapes) as anything else. The only thing you get with BR is higher res (yes, potentially more bonus features, but that's a crapshoot). So the advantages of BR over DVD pale compared to DVD over VHS.
As for client delivery, BR is sexy, but my impression is that while HD delivery is definitely on the rise, more and more clients are looking for delivery on the web. You don't need a BR disc to do that.
As we go down this road, we will see physical delivery methods go the way of CDs. Bandwidth is expanding and solid state drives are becoming bigger and cheaper. We'll all be downloading Old School 3 before too long, wondering what to do with all the space on our shelves where our collections sat.
Personally, I love physical formats. I have about a thousand DVDs and 600 or so VHS movies. But my kids could care less.
The popularity of DVDs over VHS had as much to do with convenience (no rewinding), features (commentary, BTS, etc), and durability (no more chewed up tapes) as anything else. The only thing you get with BR is higher res (yes, potentially more bonus features, but that's a crapshoot). So the advantages of BR over DVD pale compared to DVD over VHS.
As for client delivery, BR is sexy, but my impression is that while HD delivery is definitely on the rise, more and more clients are looking for delivery on the web. You don't need a BR disc to do that.
As we go down this road, we will see physical delivery methods go the way of CDs. Bandwidth is expanding and solid state drives are becoming bigger and cheaper. We'll all be downloading Old School 3 before too long, wondering what to do with all the space on our shelves where our collections sat.
Personally, I love physical formats. I have about a thousand DVDs and 600 or so VHS movies. But my kids could care less.
filmguy123
Veteran
You're not factoring in that there was no format war with DVD. Blu Ray may have shipped its first player in 2006, but no one except the videophiles went out and even considered buying one until the format was won a little over a year ago. Blu-Ray can be considered to have TRULY "started" as a viable format in 2008, and by that measure, they have 8% market share 1.5 years into things.
filmguy123
Veteran
Anyone?
It will only add new content if you install it in the same location as your current content (or if it's in the default location). It will copy over only the new content and won't create duplicates. Alternatively, you can tell it to not install the content all together.
filmguy123
Veteran
Sorry, what I meant by my question is:
if I currently have FCS 2.0 installed and I want to install ONLY fcs 3.0 programs (ie NOT install any content from fcs3)...
will all the fcs3 apps still link to the fcs2 content that I had previously installed?
Barry_Green
Moderator
There was a format war with DVD. Many format wars, in fact. There was the format war before it shipped, between Sony and Toshiba (ooh, sound familiar?) Toshiba won that round.
Afterwards there came DVD-RAM, DVD-R, DVD+R, DVD-RW, and DVD+RW. Then there was the format war between DVD and DIVX. And yes, that was a full-fledged "format war" because within six months of launch, DIVX already held 10% of the DVD market and a catalog of over 500 titles. DIVX came out within about six months of DVD being launched, so there were two fledgeling formats fighting it out for the consumer's heart and wallet. They fought it out for over a year.
Furthermore, it was obviously a "format war" because three of the major 7 studios (Disney, Fox, and Paramount) initially would ONLY release their content on DIVX, and wouldn't support DVD. Doesn't that sound pretty much exactly like the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray "format war"?
Cees Mutsaers
Veteran
But the apple site says : no transcoding. It is all very confusing !!
Native AVC-Intra support
Final Cut Pro 7 makes it easy to work with the latest high-quality cameras from Panasonic. Native support for the AVC-Intra format means you can ingest footage directly into Final Cut Pro at high speeds — without transcoding.
Native AVC-Intra support
Final Cut Pro 7 makes it easy to work with the latest high-quality cameras from Panasonic. Native support for the AVC-Intra format means you can ingest footage directly into Final Cut Pro at high speeds — without transcoding.
Cees Mutsaers
Veteran
If you have made a project of 20 minutes (in AVC-I-100 this is 20 Gb right ?) how are you going to deliver this to the customer if you can't burn it to BR discs using FCP ? You burn a lot's of DVDs ??
Barry_Green
Moderator
There's a difference between transcoding (which is what Apple used to make you do) and converting the file format (which is what they still make you do).
Transcoding means rendering the file into a different codec. Apple used to require you to transcode from AVC-Intra over to ProRes. This step is no longer required.
But they still do require you to change the file format from MXF over to Quicktime before they allow you to work with the footage. So there were two hindrances that needed to be overcome before you could truly work with the footage in its original files. They accomplished one step, but will not even consider taking that second step.
Transcoding means rendering the file into a different codec. Apple used to require you to transcode from AVC-Intra over to ProRes. This step is no longer required.
But they still do require you to change the file format from MXF over to Quicktime before they allow you to work with the footage. So there were two hindrances that needed to be overcome before you could truly work with the footage in its original files. They accomplished one step, but will not even consider taking that second step.
filmguy123
Veteran
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!
Ticked off at the speed controls in FCP 7.
These new time control improvements are not at ALL what they should have been. Removing "Ripple Sequence" doesn't actually change the clips speed & duration without rippling... it simply LOCKS the clips duration and applies a speed change to whatever fits inside! GRRRR.
This is beyond annoying. I've waited years for them to finally fix their god-awful speed controls to be half as good as Premiere's and they come up with this? You still can't do a freaking time speed change that appropriately shortens/lengthens the duration without rippling the sequence. WOW Apple, WOW.
Now you can do this with their new speed tool, which eases the pain, but this could have been better. Dragging with their new speed rubber band tool doesn't show on the pop-up what speed percentage you are changing it to, you have to wait until after you're done dragging to see that. So I can't drag until I see "75%" and I have to guess work it.
And there's no dedicated hot button to get to "speed tool" you have to tap "s" 3x times - annoying. No worries, I'll just switch slip tool to be the triple-s tap and make speed to be a single s tap. Except I CAN'T, because when I am re-assigning, I can't triple tap s to reassign the slip tool, it just detects the first time I hit "s" and says "this is already applied to the speed tool, do you want to reassign?"
Great. One of the only "real" new features on FCP 7 isn't even done right. At least I have color coded markers to show the fruit of 2 years labor. And why can I still *not* just click and drag down a list of buttons to perform an action like in every Adobe product?? I still have to manually mute, luck, etc. any given track.
I was disappointed with the update upon reading about it, I am even more disappointed having actually used it and feeling cheated by the features.
Ticked off at the speed controls in FCP 7.
These new time control improvements are not at ALL what they should have been. Removing "Ripple Sequence" doesn't actually change the clips speed & duration without rippling... it simply LOCKS the clips duration and applies a speed change to whatever fits inside! GRRRR.
This is beyond annoying. I've waited years for them to finally fix their god-awful speed controls to be half as good as Premiere's and they come up with this? You still can't do a freaking time speed change that appropriately shortens/lengthens the duration without rippling the sequence. WOW Apple, WOW.
Now you can do this with their new speed tool, which eases the pain, but this could have been better. Dragging with their new speed rubber band tool doesn't show on the pop-up what speed percentage you are changing it to, you have to wait until after you're done dragging to see that. So I can't drag until I see "75%" and I have to guess work it.
And there's no dedicated hot button to get to "speed tool" you have to tap "s" 3x times - annoying. No worries, I'll just switch slip tool to be the triple-s tap and make speed to be a single s tap. Except I CAN'T, because when I am re-assigning, I can't triple tap s to reassign the slip tool, it just detects the first time I hit "s" and says "this is already applied to the speed tool, do you want to reassign?"
Great. One of the only "real" new features on FCP 7 isn't even done right. At least I have color coded markers to show the fruit of 2 years labor. And why can I still *not* just click and drag down a list of buttons to perform an action like in every Adobe product?? I still have to manually mute, luck, etc. any given track.
I was disappointed with the update upon reading about it, I am even more disappointed having actually used it and feeling cheated by the features.
filmguy123
Veteran
No.
The DVD format war was resolved in 1995, the first DVD player launched in 1997. It was a format war that was not fought amongst consumers. So it's not fair to compare it to Blu-Ray launching alongside HD-DVD in 2006, in a format war that was fought with consumers.
DVD-R, DVD+R, DVD-RAM - these were all derivates of DVD and cannot be considered a format war. The term "format war" gets thrown around a lot, but this would be more like a sub-format battle - and one that never amounted to much of anything or slowed the adoption rate in any notable way.
And B.S. on DIVX being a full fledged format war - NOT AT ALL!! This was the brainchild of Circuit City and was a way to do some sort of quasi rental system - a pay per view DVD. First, It was based on the DVD format and added a way of deactivating the disc after viewing unless you paid to upgrade. A DIVX player could play normal DVDs and cost about $100 more than a normal DVD player. It was an add-on to DVD. The format was a feeble attempt by Circuit City, failed miserably and cannot be considered a format war, since it was a derivative of DVD and hardly took off. DIVX didn't even come into existence until 3 yeas after the DVD format was declared and a year after players were shipped.
Also, where did you get your information about those studios only supporting DIVX? I have never heard that before anywhere and couldn't find it online. I know they supported the format (which isn't really a format so much as it is a pay-per-view version of DVD). If they ever did announce that they would exclusively do DIVX, this either never came to fruition or lasted such a short time it had no impact.
This is Apples to Oranges and Blu Ray had a much rougher launch than DVD, in a crappy economy. Realistically, we are about 1.5 years into the launch of the Blu-Ray format and the economy sucks. To compare this to 4 years into DVD in a good economy is bogus.
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
I remember guys literally getting into fist fights over DVD vs Divx. That seems like a war to me.
Barry_Green
Moderator
filmguy, have fun with your memories of DIVX vs. DVD. When you have three studios refusing to launch their titles on DVD and instead committing exclusively to DIVX, that makes it a format war by my definition. If you don't agree, fine, don't agree. But every stitch of what I said was the facts as far as I remember and can verify through simple searching, so for you to call it "bogus" and "B.S." is offensive, insulting, and unnecessary.
For example, if you had done adequate research you would have found the Hollywood Reporter article from April 28, 1998 where Paramount announced that it was finally going to adopt the DVD format, leaving only two studios not supporting the DVD format. A quote from the article:
Fox, DreamWorks, and Paramount had all initially committed to *exclusively* support the DIVX format, and to not release any content on the rival DVD format. (hmm, sound familiar?)
Look, I was there. DVD did not have studio support. The ONLY two studios that went exclusively for DVD were Warner and Sony. Everyone else went with DIVX or straddled the line, supporting both (hmm, sound familiar?)
Studios greatly preferred DIVX over DVD because DIVX was way more ripe with DRM and anti-copy measures. (hmm, sound familiar?)
I don't know how old anyone else is, or what they remember, but the talk back then was that DIVX was handing out $20,000,000 signing bonuses to studios to get them to go exclusively with DIVX. (does that sound familiar? Same kind of thing happened to get Paramount and Dreamworks to ignore Blu-Ray and sign exclusively with HD-DVD, only this time the payola was rumored to be $150 million). Hmm, Paramount and DreamWorks taking paychecks to support only one format and to withhold support from the other... does that sound familiar?
If Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD was a "format war", then so was DIVX vs. DVD. Same things happened, the parallels are eerie. It's a format war, that DIVX lost. DIVX lasted a full year. It had the support of the majority of the studios. And it lost. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
For example, if you had done adequate research you would have found the Hollywood Reporter article from April 28, 1998 where Paramount announced that it was finally going to adopt the DVD format, leaving only two studios not supporting the DVD format. A quote from the article:
Fox, DreamWorks, and Paramount had all initially committed to *exclusively* support the DIVX format, and to not release any content on the rival DVD format. (hmm, sound familiar?)
Look, I was there. DVD did not have studio support. The ONLY two studios that went exclusively for DVD were Warner and Sony. Everyone else went with DIVX or straddled the line, supporting both (hmm, sound familiar?)
Studios greatly preferred DIVX over DVD because DIVX was way more ripe with DRM and anti-copy measures. (hmm, sound familiar?)
I don't know how old anyone else is, or what they remember, but the talk back then was that DIVX was handing out $20,000,000 signing bonuses to studios to get them to go exclusively with DIVX. (does that sound familiar? Same kind of thing happened to get Paramount and Dreamworks to ignore Blu-Ray and sign exclusively with HD-DVD, only this time the payola was rumored to be $150 million). Hmm, Paramount and DreamWorks taking paychecks to support only one format and to withhold support from the other... does that sound familiar?
If Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD was a "format war", then so was DIVX vs. DVD. Same things happened, the parallels are eerie. It's a format war, that DIVX lost. DIVX lasted a full year. It had the support of the majority of the studios. And it lost. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
I was not involved in the industry back then, but I remember the debate very well. What it came down to for as a consumer me was simplicity, and DVD was simpler. I also suspected that, like CDs, prices of the discs would drop over time, hence trumping DIVX's lower upfront costs.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Right, but as I understand it, HDTVs are selling quite well (btw, seen any SD-only sets in a TV store recently? I haven't). Then there's HD cable and Satellite, and HD camcorders, all of which are very prevalent now. It all points to HD being the standard, like...now. Personally, I think Blu-ray is at most a couple years away from eliminating the DVD.
Online delivery is the wild card of course, and it's potentially a massive juggernaut that could wipe out a lot of other media. Time will tell...
Also, DVD didn't require a new TV to get the benefit. You want HD out of BR, you have to buy a HD TV, and that's going to have held back take-up.
But that doesn't negate Barry's point - both delaying factors have given more development time to alternatives. We have a very nice 42" plasma TV, about 6 years old. Lovely picture (SD). By the time we get 'round to replacing it with HD, I'd be surprised if we weren't looking at a choice between BR and other formats.