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

[pailes]

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.

Please note that I was only guessing, I have no facts which support my wild theories . It's not necessarily bound to the quicktime format (which is certainly not a bad container file format, no matter how old it is. It was chosen as standard container by the MPEG group for the MPEG-4 container format) but it's certainly bound to the Quicktime API. But maybe the FCP architecture is flexible enough and adding AVCHD stream support to Quicktime would most probably solve the problem.
But being a software engineer myself I know that dealing with a transport stream in a NLE is just very difficult. It is possible, but it's a hassle that's for sure.

 

[pailes]

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!

You can use ffmpeg to transfer the elementary streams of the AVCHD stream into a quicktime container without actual transcoding. There are just two problems with that approach:

1. Seeking in the resulting H.264 .mov is just painfully slow because there is no index table pointing to the right IDR frames.
2. You can't transfer the AC3 audio to the quicktime container. You need to perform decoding and stick PCM or whatever data to the .mov.

I bet the makers of clipwrap2 are currently trying to solve issue number 1, that's why it's not out yet haha

 

[David Saraceno]

I'd hate to have my 2009 editor's hands tied by a file format that originated in 1991.

It's not like it hasn't been updated and gotten better?

Porsche originated in 1931.

Hate to tie my driving experiene to a brand that originated 78 years ago.

 

[Superfresa66]

You can use ffmpeg to transfer the elementary streams of the AVCHD stream into a quicktime container without actual transcoding. There are just two problems with that approach:

1. Seeking in the resulting H.264 .mov is just painfully slow because there is no index table pointing to the right IDR frames.
2. You can't transfer the AC3 audio to the quicktime container. You need to perform decoding and stick PCM or whatever data to the .mov.

I bet the makers of clipwrap2 are currently trying to solve issue number 1, that's why it's not out yet haha

If you were to make "PailesWrap" for AVCHD i would buy it :happy:

At David, yeah can you imagine having to drive a porsche! :violin:

 

[ATL Media Group]

It's not like it hasn't been updated and gotten better?

Porsche originated in 1931.

Hate to tie my driving experiene to a brand that originated 78 years ago.

Wouldn't it be a shame if the new Porsche had to use the same drivetrain as a '31 model? Sure, the new one would have dual airbags and new CD/DVD player but it's not tied to the original drivetrain.

:embarasse

 

[David Saraceno]

wouldn't it be great of Porsche provided an updated 56 speedster for about $10K?



My point is that the QT container has evolved over the years. Just because it has been around since I saw it in 1992 doesn't detract from its capabilities; or that it won't evolve more.

There are in excess of 900,000 seats for FCP.

A recent poll here indicates that most here use FCP for editing.

There must be a reason to support Apple's approach in utilizing a QT container.

Barry and I and others go round and round on Apple's use of QT to support file based media.

He feels, and I am not speaking for him, that native support of mxf or avcintra or AVCHD, etc. is better.

And he points to other PC NLE's and Premiere as examples of better support.

But I just don't understand why native support is so critical to the editing experience.

Back up your original native media; edit using whatever platform you want and are comfortable with.

Just about every NLE and platform represents some compromise.

 

[ATL Media Group]

But I just don't understand why native support is so critical to the editing experience.

Critical? No... Convenient? Absolutely. Otherwise the news about JVC supporting QT in it's latest product line wouldn't be a big deal. It is a big deal and they advertise it as such.

Now, you have TWO cameras that shoot in a native QT wrapper so FCP users can edit the files natively. CS4 and most other NLEs can edit most other file based cameras files natively without the need for a wrapper.

 

[Barry_Green]

Same argument went for capture cards long ago. What does it matter what the original format is, once I digitize it with my Decklink etc. etc. etc. Of course, now every editor supports native codec editing (except FCP and Avid with AVCHD, but that may change).

Had a guy who owned a BetaSP camera say a decade ago that his was just as good as a digital betacam system, because it's all video, and hey, once he shoots on BetaSP he digitizes it and then ... "it's digital. Just as good."

But it isn't.

I freely admit that there's a gap between what is "best" and what the market adopts. We saw it happen with VHS vs. Beta. We're seeing it happen with FCP. People don't seem to care what the other options are, "if it isn't FCP, it isn't real" or something... :/

So let me ask you: What would possibly be inferior about working with files in their native file format?

I mean, you can always transcode if you want. I am just not a big fan of the "do it my way or else" approach, and when I question the company "well, why is your way best?" the answer is "shut up and like it."

I believe that Apple's approach is not in the end users' favor. So I don't like it. I think the people paying for the product, the ones making their living with the product, should be the ones whose needs come first. The ones who should be catered to. And the way I see it, they're the ones who are currently being considered last in the equation.

So I don't like it.

Look, as I see it, it's like this: the ability to interchange your battery is SUPERIOR to not having the ability to interchange your battery. Yet Apple is doing its best to eliminate user-interchangeable batteries across its product lines. This is not in the customer's favor. But people accept it because "hey, at least I'm using an Apple" or whatever justification is given. But it is not better for the end user, it is worse for the end user. A fact acknowledged by every other manufacturer of cell phones, computers, etc., all of which have user-interchangeable batteries.

Forcing you to use one file format, especially in a file-based workflow where you're prevented (not just discouraged, but prevented) from using the native files, seems counterproductive and perhaps even hostile towards the user. It is not better for the user. It doesn't serve the user in any way. If it was optional, and they provided native file support (like, again, every other manufacturer of NLE software does) then I wouldn't have any problem with it (just like I have no problem with EDIUS offering the CanopusHQ transcoder, which I never use but it's there and it does provide an exquisite AVCHD editing experience if I wanted to use it).

It seems unnecessarily exclusionary and monopolistic -- but, then again, that's par for the course for Apple ("no, you cannot run our OS on any other hardware, you can only use ours," and "no, you cannot run our programs under any other OS, only ours," and "no, nobody else is allowed to make hardware compatible with ours, only we can", and "no, you cannot download our MP3 files onto any other player, only ours", and "no, you cannot use our phones on any other network, only the one we want you to use", and "no, you cannot sell applications for our phone unless we review and approve them," and "no, you cannot use file formats from anyone else, you must only use ours" and "if anything comes along that's compatible and cheaper, we shall use the might of our lawsuits to crush them all out of existence so that everyone can only ever use what we want them to have").

So, we'll never see eye to eye on it; I guess I'm too much of a rebel and I don't like that much "big brother" in my life, and I certainly don't like paying for it. :thumbsup:

With that said, I recognize that they've been very successful in attracting converts to their system. As I said before, the market will decide. It always does.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Critical? No... Convenient? Absolutely. Otherwise the news about JVC supporting QT in it's latest product line wouldn't be a big deal. It is a big deal and they advertise it as such.

Now, you have TWO cameras that shoot in a native QT wrapper so FCP users can edit the files natively. CS4 and most other NLEs can edit most other file based cameras files natively without the need for a wrapper.

I've not used After Effect much outside of stuff that goes between my FCE and AE recently. However, I recall AE (earlier versions) occasionally would kack on a media file... I'd go to QT, create a .mov, not even self contained, and et voila... AE read the thing in, because QT read the thing... it's been a while since I've run into this, so I don't recall what was the original problem, but perhaps it was some WAV file or another, that for some reason wasn't recognized straight off.

This sort of non-feature sort of irritated me, in that if QT was able to 'wrap' the file and then recognize it... why couldn't the API that AE was using to access the underlying QT code, just go ahead and do it automatically.

 

[Superfresa66]

I would rather transcode and edit with a smile than have some crappy "native support" experience!

Nobody seems to answer to the fact that a native AVCHD file on a Premier, Vegas or Edius sytem is nothing but a big headache once you get to some real editing... am not talking about putting straight cuts and uploading it to youtube... I mean some heavy compositions, colorgrading, filters, titles, keyframing... all the Bells and Whistles one may want, or not!

I doubt any news place dealing with ultra critical and time sensitive material are dealing with AVCHD... that's why they have AVC-Intra!

 

[Superfresa66]

You must use our P2 Cards and nobody elses... um... i know there's work arounds on the Sony EX series.

It's funny because i have an iPhone running on t-mobile and using any app i may possibly want (alot of them are free right from iTunes), i have a Hackintosh running 10.5.8 and editing anything i trow at it... I understand Apples point of view, they designed something to work and be reliable. Maybe that's why windows could be so unstable and full of viruses (every other dee dee dee is messing with it and developing bad apps)
All i do is laugh at the "Hello I'm a PC" commercials

All i can say is use what you feel works for you, and edit what you want and how you want it!

 

[David Saraceno]

I freely admit that there's a gap between what is "best" and what the market adopts. We saw it happen with VHS vs. Beta. We're seeing it happen with FCP. People don't seem to care what the other options are, "if it isn't FCP, it isn't real" or something... :/

I would agree, except the issue with VHS and Beta was quality, and clearly Beta was better.

But using a QT wrapper doesn't compromise on quality. Otherwise, I would show FCP/Apple to the door.

Apple must be doing something right insofar as using the QT wrapper, because other than AVID, it probably owns the larger part of market share.

As I said, every NLE represents a compromise and the market determines what eventually sells. For me, the only issue now is mxf and DVCProHD. The rewrap isn't issue. If I find it to be, I have at least three inexpensive alternatives on the Mac that facilitate this.

We can also argue about Windows and MacOS.

Isn't that emblematic of what is "best" and what the market adopts?

BTW, I bought beta.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

BTW, I bought beta.

So did I... But I didn't buy a Mac Toster... I bought a Lisa... I didn't buy another Mac until Mac II... then did hardware such as coprocessor to speed up RenderMan, FDDI cards, GEther cards (until Apple put a GEther interface on Mac, at a time when the typical GEther switch was >$10K...), at which point I exited the Mac 3rd party support world...

My 'alliegence' has been pretty much the hardware that I've liked... it has never been because they, and let's be clear it has been mostly Steve Jobs', have kept a 'closed house' on the system hardware.

I do like my iPhone... and I've had other phone widgets... I don't like the locked relationship with AT&T... just today I got some email lists that carried the Apple/ATT/Google FCC respones... Apple was hemingandhawing on why Google Voice was not 'approved'...

Fortunately I have about 3 iPhones of earlier vintage that I can hack to give me world coverage...

 

[studio1972]

Same argument went for capture cards long ago. What does it matter what the original format is, once I digitize it with my Decklink etc. etc. etc. Of course, now every editor supports native codec editing (except FCP and Avid with AVCHD, but that may change).

Had a guy who owned a BetaSP camera say a decade ago that his was just as good as a digital betacam system, because it's all video, and hey, once he shoots on BetaSP he digitizes it and then ... "it's digital. Just as good."

But it isn't.

Not sure what this has to do with Apple or FCS?

I freely admit that there's a gap between what is "best" and what the market adopts. We saw it happen with VHS vs. Beta. We're seeing it happen with FCP. People don't seem to care what the other options are, "if it isn't FCP, it isn't real" or something... :/

Do you honestly think that the ability to natively edit AVCHD is the main deciding factor on which editor is best?

So let me ask you: What would possibly be inferior about working with files in their native file format?

I mean, you can always transcode if you want. I am just not a big fan of the "do it my way or else" approach, and when I question the company "well, why is your way best?" the answer is "shut up and like it."

Who are you quoting? Don't remember anybody ever saying that.

Maybe the reasons for FC working the way it does are:

1. The system requirements for AVCHD native editing would be too high
2. Apple also produce the operating system, plus a load of other software such as iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, iWork, iPhoto etc. Maybe they wanted to have a system where once the video is imported, it can be used in all these programs as well.
3. Maybe they want to be able to update this capability by simple updating Quicktime
4. They have an excellent set of editing codecs available.

Look, as I see it, it's like this: the ability to interchange your battery is SUPERIOR to not having the ability to interchange your battery. Yet Apple is doing its best to eliminate user-interchangeable batteries across its product lines. This is not in the customer's favor. But people accept it because "hey, at least I'm using an Apple" or whatever justification is given. But it is not better for the end user, it is worse for the end user. A fact acknowledged by every other manufacturer of cell phones, computers, etc., all of which have user-interchangeable batteries.

Well, macbooks seem to have much better battery life than most PC laptops and seem to be getting more popular, not less. Maybe people think it's better to have one 6 hour battery than 3 x 2 hour ones that you have to keep swapping and charging?

So, we'll never see eye to eye on it; I guess I'm too much of a rebel and I don't like that much "big brother" in my life, and I certainly don't like paying for it.

With that said, I recognize that they've been very successful in attracting converts to their system. As I said before, the market will decide. It always does.

This makes it seem that you think you are much cleverer than the 'rest of us' and we've all been conned by some evil big brother. Maybe there is something about apple products that people actually like, that you haven't noticed?

It's not a problem if you prefer Adobe products etc. but in the end Apple is just a company that makes hardware and software and sells them to people who like using them, just like any other company. Nothing for you to get so upset about.

 

[ATL Media Group]

Hmm... So many on the MAC side play off native RT AVCHD editing because transcoding is "no big deal". If that were true, then what about the OP of this very thread? How about the advertising and oooing and ahhing over the JVC simply because FCP can edit it's files natively?

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Do you honestly think that the ability to natively edit AVCHD is the main deciding factor on which editor is best?

There are a number of other issues that surround this one codec. For example, it was given out that the reason for eliminating a Firewire port on lower end Mac Books was because the 'consumer world', the target buyers for that laptop, were tending towards cameras that had USB 2.0 interfaces... well those same cameras also have AVCHD in several cases... so... uh, eliminate a 'high end' interface, to allow for 'low end' consumer cameras... but don't give a good implementation of a codec processor to handle those low end cameras...

What form of rocket science does that suggest...

What is more interesting is the lack of 'real' support for Bluray, long after the HDDVD/BluRay wars were settled in BluRay's favor... and as a note... one of the supported underlying containers in BluRay, is our friend AVCHD...

And of course, H.264, has been used by Apple for quite a while...

All of this adds up to a very confusing picture...

 

[Barry_Green]

Not sure what this has to do with Apple or FCS?

Workflow -- "Why does my editor need to support DV? Or HDV? Or Digital Betacam? Or DVCPRO-HD? I'm just gonna import it all into my DeckLink card and it'll all show up as a blackmagic file, so it's all the same." Sounds like the same workflow justifications. "I'm just gonna transcode it all to ProRes"...

Maybe people think it's better to have one 6 hour battery than 3 x 2 hour ones that you have to keep swapping and charging?

Up until you need to take it on a plane for a 15-hour flight. Then you're screwed. Or the battery dies finally, and you have to send it in for repairs. Or you're on a shoot and you need 7 hours of battery life instead of 6. Those are all things that you just can't do, under Apple's new/current plan.

Maybe there is something about apple products that people actually like, that you haven't noticed?

Oh, I've noticed it. It's kind of hard not to notice.

But it still comes back to the original question that nobody has seemed to answer: what would be so wrong about adding support for other file formats? You don't HAVE to use them... but for those who want to, why is it such a big deal to prevent us? And the answer is: they want to control file distribution. And my answer is: I don't like that. And I don't understand why people seem to be okay with that. It's like when Microsoft announced they were going to try to control all online payments, and take 1/4 of 1c from every transaction, and the reaction was pretty much universal: "OH HELL NO!" Nobody wanted Microsoft to control all payment processing on the internet. So why would we want Apple to control all file formats in music, video, internet, etc? I just don't get it.

Look, it's really, in the end, all about open vs. closed. Proprietary versus non-proprietary. Exclusionary vs. inclusionary. It's a fundamental philosophical difference.

I just don't get why having things both ways, letting you pick which one you want, is somehow worse than "my way or the highway"...

Nothing for you to get so upset about

I don't really recall being "upset". I just know what's possible, I see everyone else doing it, and I see Apple specifically not doing it, and when I ask them why I get an answer of "because we want to enforce Quicktime as a universal worldwide format. We aren't going to support any other file formats." And for people to say "yay, that's the way we want it" -- it's puzzling.

Doesn't make me "upset", it just means that yeah, I'm incompatible with their products.

But, no matter -- we're plenty enough off tangent and we can certainly attempt to right the ship again by getting back on track.

 

[studio1972]

There are a number of other issues that surround this one codec. For example, it was given out that the reason for eliminating a Firewire port on lower end Mac Books was because the 'consumer world', the target buyers for that laptop, were tending towards cameras that had USB 2.0 interfaces... well those same cameras also have AVCHD in several cases... so... uh, eliminate a 'high end' interface, to allow for 'low end' consumer cameras... but don't give a good implementation of a codec processor to handle those low end cameras...

What form of rocket science does that suggest...

It's not rocket science, it's common sense.

iMovie has been compatible with AVCHD for quite a while. It comes free with these laptops. Not sure what you think is the problem here?

 

[Barry_Green]

You must use our P2 Cards and nobody elses...

Well, you could use Maxell's P2 cards, or Fuji's P2 cards, or you could use a FireStore, or you could chain the camera to a laptop running OnLocation, or you could use a DVCPRO-HD tape deck... lots and lots of choices.

It's funny because i have an iPhone running on t-mobile and using any app i may possibly want (alot of them are free right from iTunes), i have a Hackintosh running 10.5.8 and editing anything i trow at it...

Well, that is funny... sounds like you're a bit of a rebel as well. Of course, you had to specifically defy them to get those things to happen...

All i can say is use what you feel works for you, and edit what you want and how you want it!

Yep, that is what it all comes down to.

 

[studio1972]

Workflow -- "Why does my editor need to support DV? Or HDV? Or Digital Betacam? Or DVCPRO-HD? I'm just gonna import it all into my DeckLink card and it'll all show up as a blackmagic file, so it's all the same." Sounds like the same workflow justifications. "I'm just gonna transcode it all to ProRes"...


Up until you need to take it on a plane for a 15-hour flight. Then you're screwed. Or the battery dies finally, and you have to send it in for repairs. Or you're on a shoot and you need 7 hours of battery life instead of 6. Those are all things that you just can't do, under Apple's new/current plan.

I would imagine that the % of people who need to work for over 6 hours in an environment with no power supply access is very very small. For thiose very few people, maybe they could get something like this:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/04/hypermac-external-battery-powers-macbooks-for-32-hours/

As for replacing a dud battery. I think that this takes a few minutes and a screw driver, big deal!

Oh, I've noticed it. It's kind of hard not to notice.

But it still comes back to the original question that nobody has seemed to answer: what would be so wrong about adding support for other file formats? You don't HAVE to use them... but for those who want to, why is it such a big deal to prevent us? And the answer is: they want to control file distribution. And my answer is: I don't like that. And I don't understand why people seem to be okay with that. It's like when Microsoft announced they were going to try to control all online payments, and take 1/4 of 1c from every transaction, and the reaction was pretty much universal: "OH HELL NO!" Nobody wanted Microsoft to control all payment processing on the internet. So why would we want Apple to control all file formats in music, video, internet, etc? I just don't get it.

They don't control all formats. You can write any software you like for the Mac if you want, and it can read any format you like. As for your "original question", I tried to answer it with the following:

1. The system requirements for AVCHD native editing would be too high
2. Apple also produce the operating system, plus a load of other software such as iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, iWork, iPhoto etc. Maybe they wanted to have a system where once the video is imported, it can be used in all these programs as well.
3. Maybe they want to be able to update this capability by simple updating Quicktime
4. They have an excellent set of editing codecs available.

You chose to ignore my answer and make up your own answer that they "want to control file distribution", that is a straw man argument.

Look, it's really, in the end, all about open vs. closed. Proprietary versus non-proprietary. Exclusionary vs. inclusionary. It's a fundamental philosophical difference.



I just don't get why having things both ways, letting you pick which one you want, is somehow worse than "my way or the highway"...

I think it's actually that Apple like to have a level of control and consistency about what they produce, and the resulting user experience. It's maybe like a benign dictatorship in some ways, but then, a committee could never have designed an iMac, Aluminium body Macbook, MacOs etc. etc. so many people prefer the results. Of course there's nothing wrong with competition and i think it's great that there are other systems out there.

I don't really recall being "upset". I just know what's possible, I see everyone else doing it, and I see Apple specifically not doing it, and when I ask them why I get an answer of "because we want to enforce Quicktime as a universal worldwide format. We aren't going to support any other file formats." And for people to say "yay, that's the way we want it" -- it's puzzling.

Is that an actual quote or are you interpreting something? I can't see how this could be their aim as they will never have 100% of the computer market.

Doesn't make me "upset", it just means that yeah, I'm incompatible with their products..

Think of it this way, Apple is just another competitor in the market. The better their stuff gets, the harder all the other companies compete giving better products to you. You should be happy they are there, just as apple users should be happy about CS4, Edius etc.