Final Cut Pro 7-What does this mean for us?

DNathan said:
Clark, if you were skilled at FCS and not at Premier, and considering whether to buy the new FCS or CS4 (for AVCHD) which would you choose?
Click to expand...

Actually it's the other way around. While not FCS, I've been using FC Express for years, and watched it 'decline' so to speak, and become really only a country cousin of FCP. I'll also note, that the reaons I chose FCE over the full up package, was that I already had After Effects, and didn't need much beyond FC for editing live video, so I didn't need the 'studio', (As a note, I was really pissed when FCE 4.0 dropped Sound Trak support...) and it didn't seem that Apple was moving to an 'unbundled', and cheaper offering of the FCP. (Wasn't it at one time available as a separate item...).

Anyway, at the present moment I have CS4 Production Premium, which includes Premiere, After Effects, and Encore, which can create BluRay... something which the new FC bundle is sort of supporting... sort of... the demo I saw sort of looked like a limited form of iDVD...

The pluses for CS4 are, I have it, it does something of a 'native' AVCHD, and it does produce BluRay disks, which is what one would want to do with HD... isn't it? Furthermore, Adobe supports both Mac OS and Windows... whereas FCS is only on a Mac... unless someone is hacking something...

The minuses, I have to learn some new knobology...
 
yeah but in the end its still 20 year old mpeg2. i dont find it a problem transcoding either but i can see where native editing would have its perks.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
As far as I can tell, the JVC '.mov' capability really is because HDV has been in FCP for 'years', and now with the use of the solid state media, JVC can up the bit rate to 35 Mbs, rather than worrying about having to 'squeeze' it onto mini-DV tape.
Click to expand...

Not really... JVC is using sony's XDCam codec. They wrap it in a .mov container so it's instantly digested into FCP without having to transcode to ProRes.

Just like AVCHD is for Premiere CS4.1

:)
 
ATL Media Group said:
Just like AVCHD is for Premiere CS4.1
Click to expand...
Well, AVCHD, and DVCPRO-HD, and XDCAM-EX, and basically every other format.

Seems like people think JVC's native quicktime recording is some sort of new thing or bonus. Fact is, it's only new to FCP users; every other editor out there has supported native editing of tapeless formats for years.
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, AVCHD, and DVCPRO-HD, and XDCAM-EX, and basically every other format.

Seems like people think JVC's native quicktime recording is some sort of new thing or bonus. Fact is, it's only new to FCP users; every other editor out there has supported native editing of tapeless formats for years.
Click to expand...


heh... I was just mentioning AVCHD because it's here in the HMC forum..

:thumbup:
 
I know, it's just ... you see these ads where JVC's touting "the world's fastest workflow" and you have to laugh. Avid was editing media directly from the P2 cards in 2004. Shoot the footage, plug the card in, edit. Yet now with JVC, in 2009, somehow it's something "new"? Sigh.
 
Oh ya.. I know. I guess JVC being able to advertise editing the files natively on FCP is a huge selling point. Maybe one day Apple will stop requiring everything to be .mov and then it'll be moot?
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, AVCHD, and DVCPRO-HD, and XDCAM-EX, and basically every other format.

Seems like people think JVC's native quicktime recording is some sort of new thing or bonus. Fact is, it's only new to FCP users; every other editor out there has supported native editing of tapeless formats for years.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know what the FCP codebase is like, but it seems that it is built upon Quicktime from ground up. They can not just stick a format to it which is totally different from a Quicktime container (i.e. AVCHD MPEG2 transport stream). Even if they support AVCHD streams in Quicktime (which I heard they do in Snow Leopard) there is probably tons of other things in a Quicktime container they rely on in FCP. Maybe you can import .MTS files in FCP as soon as Snow Leopard comes out, we will see.
 
pailes said:
Well, I don't know what the FCP codebase is like, but it seems that it is built upon Quicktime from ground up. They can not just stick a format to it which is totally different from a Quicktime container (i.e. AVCHD MPEG2 transport stream). Even if they support AVCHD streams in Quicktime (which I heard they do in Snow Leopard) there is probably tons of other things in a Quicktime container they rely on in FCP. Maybe you can import .MTS files in FCP as soon as Snow Leopard comes out, we will see.
Click to expand...


There are a couple of points here... from this presentation that I attended where JVC and Apple were presenting, it was mentioned that Snow Leopard will not support Power PC machines. There was no 'apology' for the latest FC release dropping PPC support. (Just reading and transcoding AVCHD required an Intel processor... as I recall...)

I have not checked up on CS5, nor have I installed CS4 Premiere on a PPC machine, so I don't know what the support is for PPC coming from Adobe.
 
pailes said:
Well, I don't know what the FCP codebase is like, but it seems that it is built upon Quicktime from ground up. They can not just stick a format to it which is totally different from a Quicktime container (i.e. AVCHD MPEG2 transport stream).
Click to expand...
Well, if that is true, how unfortunate... and ridiculous. I'd hate to have my 2009 editor's hands tied by a file format that originated in 1991.

If it's true that Apple's FCP is inherently bound by and to the quicktime format, then that means that any FCP user, wanting to use any product made by anyone, that doesn't record natively in quicktime, is automatically at a disadvantage. Might have been okay during tape days, but in a file-based world it's automatically starting out two steps behind everyone else.

Thank goodness for folks like Raylight and MXF4QT and Calibrated, who allow you to sidestep that particular bit of silliness.
 
If it's true that Apple's FCP is inherently bound by and to the quicktime format, then that means that any FCP user, wanting to use any product made by anyone, that doesn't record natively in quicktime, is automatically at a disadvantage. Might have been okay during tape days, but in a file-based world it's automatically starting out two steps behind everyone else.
Click to expand...

I agree with you to a point, is great to work with files natively... but i think it really depends on the type of file. In my opinion AVCHD is a PIG on computers, i don't really think the cpu power is all there on current computers to work on these files. Like i said in the past, the moment you put in a few filters or do anything other than basic editing the entire "wonderful experience" from tapeless goes away and you get stuck with really slow render times and 1fps video previews

Now if we were talking about a different file format where you have independent frames and not just GOP's, that would be a different story...
In my opinion i agree with David, the sooner you get to a self contain frame file the better!

So do i feel like I'm "starting out two steps behind" Nope, and i wouldn't say "everyone else" either because as far as i know A LOT of people are using FCP. And even if i was starting a few steps behind, is not about who starts ahead but who finnish faster with the better results! and so far I'm happy in the results i get in FCP! (i started since FCP3 and i currently run 6 and 7 on my systems)

My 2 cents!
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, if that is true, how unfortunate... and ridiculous. I'd hate to have my 2009 editor's hands tied by a file format that originated in 1991.
Click to expand...

Err, it isn't a file format.

It is a container to hold codecs, just as AVI is on a PC. Perhaps we are saying the same thing, but I just wanted to clarify.

That said, I agree that some leeway would be great, but I also have to say that there are hundreds of thousands of satisfied FCP users that don't have a problem with the QT container.
 
David S. said:
I also have to say that there are hundreds of thousands of satisfied FCP users that don't have a problem with the QT container.
Click to expand...

Just because they don't know better. I thought (and defended) Edius for AVCHD because "Hey.. It's no big deal to transcode to Canopus HQ!" until I started using the latest Premiere. I even had debates with Barry when he said CS4.1 edited AVCHD in RT...

I'm a convert and I used Edius since 1.0 and trained others to use it. It's still a great NLE... But for AVCHD and RT you can't beat Premiere CS4.1
 
David S. said:
Err, it isn't a file format.

It is a container to hold codecs, just as AVI is on a PC. Perhaps we are saying the same thing, but I just wanted to clarify.
Click to expand...
That's the definition of a file format. It's a specified structure of how the file is written to the disk.

That said, I agree that some leeway would be great, but I also have to say that there are hundreds of thousands of satisfied FCP users that don't have a problem with the QT container.
Click to expand...
I agree, there certainly are.

I also think that FCP's heyday was during the tape days, when there was absolutely no problem with converting everything to quicktime. But tape's dead, this is now the tapeless/file-based era. And I think that the reliance on that quicktime format is going to handicap FCP in the new tapeless days. Apple's taking a very bold stand, pretty much declaring "either you're with us, or you're against us." They have said they're not going to move, they're going to only support quicktime. So either the rest of all of manufacturing starts implementing quicktime in their products, or... FCP users will continue to be at a disadvantage.

In the modern world of file-recording products and file-based workflows, an editor that refuses to work with the files -- that's a real head-scratcher to me.

That mountain ain't gonna come to Mohammed, even if Mohammed is using FCP.

But, then again, the market will decide. We'll see how this all plays out.
 
ATL Media Group said:
I'm a convert and I used Edius since 1.0 and trained others to use it. It's still a great NLE... But for AVCHD and RT you can't beat Premiere CS4.1
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that EDIUS will come up with an RT graphics board of their own, or, better, that they'll support CUDA soon enough. They're too smart not to. EDIUS's native support of AVCHD isn't bad at all, but it can't compare to the RT in CS4.1.

We're still early in the AVCHD editing phase, I'm sure by this time next year things will be far more robust and quick and figured out.
 
Barry_Green said:
I have no doubt that EDIUS will come up with an RT graphics board of their own, or, better, that they'll support CUDA soon enough. They're too smart not to. EDIUS's native support of AVCHD isn't bad at all, but it can't compare to the RT in CS4.1.

We're still early in the AVCHD editing phase, I'm sure by this time next year things will be far more robust and quick and figured out.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt it either. I know they'll do something really good. But... Now that I'm using direct link from premiere to encore and aftereffects I don't know if I will go back 100%. Probably do quick edits on Edius, but most of my work will be on Adobe.
 
Now if Adobe had an Optimized version for Mac that would be a different story!!! CS4 is not so good on Apple... We had an Adobe rep showing how great CS4.1 was and how we shouldn't switch from FCP but instead finish the project on CS4! What he forgot to mention is on how slow native avchd is on it, and also not very stable (once again I'm talking about CS4 on the Mac)
 
If i just want to do a simple quick edit on FCP I'll just buy clipwrap2 once is out!!! I will still get Slooooow render times like every other NLE doing "Native AVCHD" support!
 
Barry_Green said:
I also think that FCP's heyday was during the tape days, when there was absolutely no problem with converting everything to quicktime. But tape's dead, this is now the tapeless/file-based era.


We'll see how this all plays out.
Click to expand...

FCP 7 import native AVCIntra PDQ. Way faster than real time and no transcode.

AVCHD transcodes, in my opinion, to intraframe 4:2:2 color space to create a PLEASANT editing experience, makes sense - at least with the limitation of current hardware and software.

SxS also imports quickly.

True, mxf files don't play as well, but I prefer that ingest because it facilitates a quick review of the clips. But not quality is compromised

But I don't really believe that FCP has eroded with file based cams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top