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

[David Saraceno]

I don't think Barry is upset.

We have argued about this in the past.

I really think it comes down to how you work.

Transcoding AVCHD or rewrapping mxf to QT DVCProHD isn't an issue in the way I work.

Metadata isn't a big deal either.

But Apple services its video in a wider spectrum that Edius, Vegas, etc.

It runs through an operating system from iTunes to FCS.

That is an entirely different ball game.

In any case, who's on first?

 

[ATL Media Group]

But Apple services its video in a wider spectrum that Edius, Vegas, etc.

It runs through an operating system from iTunes to FCS.

I'm a bit perplexed by this statement. Don't all windows apps like windows DVD maker, WMP and others all use whatever video is on the PC as long as a codec is installed? Why in the heck would apple limit themselves to only pass QT around "through the OS"? If they can read the codec, then why change it to QT unless Barry is right and they just want to "rule the world" with QT?
If MS *only* allowed .wmv files to be used in their apps people would be shouting "monopoly!".
:huh:

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

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?

Well, there you have it... have all the people disgruntled over lack of support in the $1000 (or was it $1500 back then) package and use the freebee instead...

If by 'compatible' you mean 'automatic transcode to AIC on import/ingest', well isn't that sort of the problem that people are complaining about, that is the transcode time?

If you mean that iMovie was able to natively edit AVCHD, why on earth would the mavins at Apple not include it into FCP "for free"?

Or is this one of this deals where the support for a 'pedestrian codec' may give a cheapening image to the product...

 

[Amr Rahmy]

so making a battery a few times better and lives longer is worse than making a bad battery that doesn't last as long??!! some of the other comments are pretty much the same weird logic.(comparing quicktime and wmv really?!!)

making quicktime x would be much better than patching the current one for avchd.

the thing is not playback of the avchd, everything needs to be stable, and all the options and tweaks that can be made must be available, it's not like windows apps were everything gets 2x heavier every upgrade and most things don't really work anyway.

 

[ullanta]

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?

Hey, last thing I want to get involved in at the moment is a (yawn) Apple/rest of the world debate.

But, Barry... as a former software guy... do you really believe that "adding support" for other file formats is such a minor thing? That there are no issues of stability and/or bloat that would be raised? About clean interfaces and the ability to guarantee that your software will behave as intended, even as camera firmware/models change? I'm not saying it's not possible, or desirable, but I think Apple's choice is a valid one, and one not unfamiliar in the software industry: focus on building a secure system that works with formats we like, and provide (semi-)isolated translators to get the data into those formats. Put development time and effort into developing/supporting a family of codecs that make the transcoding approach flexible and high-quality (ProRes). It's not a question of "why not support feature X", it's, of course, "what's the priority of the various features we'd like to support, and what is their impact on overall system utility."

And, Big-Brother-y or not, control over the whole experience has some benefits. People running complex software on under-powered systems have frustrating delays and strange system behaviors that wipe out productivity; some people don't know why, or how to get their system to function more smoothly (say, by forcing a transcode). Sure, advanced users will figure this out... but in my experience, most filmmakers, even editors, are NOT highly computer-savvy, and suffer a lot from underspeced systems, using slow codecs, missing codecs, etc. FWIW, Apple's approach aims to provide a guarantee: if you can run FCP on any computer that has minimum specs, you can have a decent editing experience. Others can't make that promise, 'cause they don't know WHAT their systems'll'be fed. I'm not saying whether or not Apple always delivers, but that seems to be the goal.

But, hey, I'm writing from a situation where I always back everything up (multiply), so the transcode doesn't seem like an extra step - transCODE instead of transFER... and I like the faster editing.

One further thing: Due to the preponderance of Windows in the marketplace, most manufacturers provide Windows software for their proprietary codecs/formats, and few do so for Mac. To me, this means that some of this code is likely provided to software devs by camera manufacturers, or at least that spec documents are likely to be more biased towards Windows implementation than Mac implementation. So, to some extent, the burden is a bit higher for Apple, and the game a bit different. One can ask, Barry, if it's clear (and I think it has been, at least in talk here on 'User) that FCP is the most popular editor for Panasonic Prosumer cam users, why Panasonic support for Mac has been so weak over the years? (I will say that this is less the case, as lately Panny has been working well to remedy this and provide parity... but it took a long time, and is not there yet. I imagine it's the same case for Sony, etc... and JVC seems to have decided that the FCP base was worth specifically supporting).

But, hey, I wish my Epson printer would print with low magenta soemtimes even if the colors don't come out right (for a map, in a hurry, say)... I guess I don't like the "tight user experience control" there... bringing us back to: use what you like!

On the other hand, Studio 1972:

. 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.

Well, that would be an argument for the consumer products crippling the pro product... but more importantly... it is sadly not so! Interchange of video between iMovie, iDVD, and FCP is frustrating and often requires transcoding or tediously long re-wrapping. iMovie (at least 'til 7, not sure about current) transcodes all audio to floating point, which FCP doesn't like; iMovie supports more consumer camera formats than FCP, which won't play .mov-wrapped files imported by iMovie, etc. iDVD won't take encoded DVD video files from Compressor... it's a real mess!

 

[David Saraceno]

I'm a bit perplexed by this statement. Don't all windows apps like windows DVD maker, WMP and others all use whatever video is on the PC as long as a codec is installed? Why in the heck would apple limit themselves to only pass QT around "through the OS"? If they can read the codec, then why change it to QT unless Barry is right and they just want to "rule the world" with QT?
If MS *only* allowed .wmv files to be used in their apps people would be shouting "monopoly!".
:huh:

I believe you are missing my point.

Apple doesn't prohibit native editing of mxf to DVCProHD, or AVCHD with its QT architecture.

It just doesn't provide it.

There are two or three utilities that enable native mxf ingest in FCP. Buy those tools if you find this usefulness compelling. Many don't or don't care.

You can edit native AVCHD in Premiere CS 4.1 as well, albeit that isn't a pleasant experience.

There are PC NLEs that don't support certain camera and codecs or support them poorly.

My view is the one wrapper is better than multiple support for consistency and fewer issues. That may be Apple's view, but I don't know.

The point is that attributing some domination motive to Apple because its editing suite doesn't support one codec or another natively doesn't make sense.

If you don't like the transcode or rewrap approach, then simply don't buy FCS.

 

[arrestthisman]

Ok, so I've glanced at this thread, and I have to agree with Barry.

I qualify this by saying I own a MBP 17". I edit with FCP, and I tend to favor apple products.

I was an apple-hater until 2004, when AVID drove me insane while working on a project during a string of updates ALL with severe bugs! I seriously became mentally unstable. So I decided to try the Mac way for future projects. And I liked it. Not perfect, but the quality of the hardware (at the time) was amazing compared to my trusty HP.

Since their move to Intel, I've seen a steady decline in quality control. Also, their arrogance is amazing. After the iPhone it's basically the company philosophy that they can do anything they want, gouge and abuse their user base, and that's ok.

My MBP is a santa rosa model with a replaceable battery.

There is no way in hell I am going to "upgrade" to the new MBP with the internal battery. It's ridiculous. Absolutely insane. I hope they learn their lesson for the next round. I'm worried they won't.

Also, for the new 17" it is inexcusable to pay 2500$ for a laptop without a quad-core. You can buy a 1500$ win-tel laptop with a quadcore. Don't tell me the "superior" design on the mac costs 1000$ or more. (If it were 1000$ more you'd still have a quad-core... like for like.)

Technology-wise, from 2003 to recently apple WAS ahead by leaps and bounds. Now, not so much. My dad just bought a beautiful Toshiba laptop, and the build quality was great. "I'm a PC" has caught up in a big way. Windows 7 is a great operating system. Apple HAS to get back in the game, and I say that as a borderline fanboy.

Specifically for FCP.... It doesn't matter to me, because transcode doesn't take that long, and I do a lot of FX, so there's rendering anyway. BUT: Why not give us the option?!?!?!?!?!!

It's nuts for apple to just ignore that AVC is a huge development in video. An area they claim to be a superior platform for. Why no native support? It sucks, plain and simple. We should have the option, especially for the premium prices we pay for their products.

Their user base is incredibly loyal. And we are NOT rewarded.

They are control freaks, and they need to realize (like M$) that open source is the future, and they need to get on board. They saved their company with the blood of BSD (unix-like). They need to give back.

This doesn't mean they have to support it. By demand they could include a feature without supporting it. (boot camp beta?)

So yes apple is cool. And Final cut studio is an amazing product, but Vegas is great too, and isn't that native.

I began editing on Premiere. I still think 5.1c is the best editor ever

If apple doesn't get off its high horse I could see myself transitioning back to wintel/vegas/premiere/ae etc. (Although I LOVE Shake, I'd miss that. Along with motion and color.) within a period of a couple of years.

Just like everything in life, each choice is a tradeoff, you pick what's best for you. For me I think FCS is still the best option. Apple balances art and function, I think lately, there's been too much art, and not enough Function.

When I saw the commercial advertising the NEW iPHONE NOW WITH CUT AND PASTE!!!! I laughed my ass off. We've had PDAs with cut and paste since 1991. figures....

 

[Barry_Green]

But, Barry... as a former software guy... do you really believe that "adding support" for other file formats is such a minor thing?

I never said it was "minor", just that everyone else does it, and Apple is alone in not doing it.

but I think Apple's choice is a valid one, and one not unfamiliar in the software industry: focus on building a secure system that works with formats we like, and provide (semi-)isolated translators to get the data into those formats.

Yes, and that's fine, if that's what you like. I just think it runs smack dab in the face of what tapeless systems should be. The products record computer files to computer-readable media. It just seems profoundly obvious to stick the computer-readable media in the computer and read the files. But FCP is alone in just plain not doing it. Every other NLE manufacturer gets the logic, but Apple just isn't gonna. It's madness, I tell you, madness!

But if people are happy with it, that's fine.

FWIW, Apple's approach aims to provide a guarantee: if you can run FCP on any computer that has minimum specs, you can have a decent editing experience. Others can't make that promise, 'cause they don't know WHAT their systems'll'be fed.

??? Every Windows NLE has minimum specifications printed right on the box...

One further thing: Due to the preponderance of Windows in the marketplace, most manufacturers provide Windows software for their proprietary codecs/formats, and few do so for Mac. To me, this means that some of this code is likely provided to software devs by camera manufacturers, or at least that spec documents are likely to be more biased towards Windows implementation than Mac implementation.

Likely due to the 92% to 8% market share in overall computer systems. Which doesn't reflect the reality that a grossly disproprotionately high percentage of editors are Mac users. This is an error in judgement on the part of companies choosing which platforms they should produce their software for.

So, to some extent, the burden is a bit higher for Apple, and the game a bit different.

Not really. If you want to be an NLE, you do the task that NLEs have to do. Support formats. Everyone else does it, so why does that make the task more difficult for Apple? If they were pointing their fingers at Panasonic and Sony and Canon and saying "those guys won't work with us, it's their fault" then that'd be one thing. But instead they're saying "we don't care what you come up with, we're only going to support Quicktime." So -- I don't see this one as a fair statement.

One can ask, Barry, if it's clear (and I think it has been, at least in talk here on 'User) that FCP is the most popular editor for Panasonic Prosumer cam users, why Panasonic support for Mac has been so weak over the years?

No answer for that, other than that a) Panasonic builds Windows systems, they sell Toughbooks, so presumably what software experience they have is on that OS, and b) they don't make software. Of any kind. So any software that they do make is an extra step for them. Which is something they'll just have to get over, because if you're in the file-based acquisition field, you're in the computer business, and you have to supply the software that your customers need. On the platform that they use.

 

[Barry_Green]

The point is that attributing some domination motive to Apple because its editing suite doesn't support one codec or another natively doesn't make sense.

Okay, how about attributing that motive to Apple because unnamed Apple employees have admitted that that's exactly what the situation is. Would that make more sense?

If you don't like the transcode or rewrap approach, then simply don't buy FCS.

Deal.

 

[David Saraceno]

Hey, we agree.

About your "deep throat" source . . . . I don't think that he or she knows.

Otherwise, Apple would disable the ability of third party companies, such as Marcus van Bavel, MXF4mac, Calibrated and others from tying into the FCS architecture.

best

 

[Barry_Green]

1. The system requirements for AVCHD native editing would be too high

Yet I can do it on a laptop on Windows?

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.

Yes, and frankly this is another one that makes me none too happy with their implementation. They make you convert your DVCPRO-HD MXF files into Mac-exclusive Quicktime files, which are not cross-platform compatible. Even though they make Quicktime available on Windows, they don't let these files work cross-platform. Quite irritating.

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.

Er, not exactly. It's what I've been told. By multiple sources. Who work at Apple.

Anyway, again, it's largely rehashing territory we've been down before; David S. and I have danced this particular polka a few times, so it's probably time to go sit it out.

 

[SixPalmPro]

Wow, I just read 10 pages of this thread and my head is spinning. The OP simply asked if FCP is going to offer native support for AVCHD, and after the ensuing clusterf**k about whether Apple is "Big Brother" or a "benign dictatorship" the best answer I could find was on page 1: maybe, but you can transcode with an improved ProRes in the meantime.

 

[pailes]

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

I was close to do it, but I couldn't find a suitable solution to the seeking problem. But I can rewrap an AVCHD stream to a Quicktime container and play it with quicktime, that does not even involve any programming, just a few ffmpeg parameters from the command line.

If I could sort out that seeking problem I would code such a tool and make it free.

 

[Barry_Green]

So you're saying you could do an on-the-fly kind of Raylight translation, a Quicktime stub that would redirect into the AVCHD file? That'd be pretty cool, but yeah, seeking would be a problem.

How about a standalone PailesWrap utility to unwrap/rewrap the H.264 as-is?

 

[pailes]

So you're saying you could do an on-the-fly kind of Raylight translation, a Quicktime stub that would redirect into the AVCHD file? That'd be pretty cool, but yeah, seeking would be a problem.

Not a stub, it's basically extracting the actual payload data of the elementary streams in the AVCHD transport stream and stuff them into the .mov container. There is no transcoding involved, you simply change the container without touching the actual coded stream data. But indexing information is not automatically derived from that information.

Seeking in an AVCHD stream is not trivial, the stream itself does not contain index information to the actual keyframes. When authoring a Blu-Ray/AVCHD disc the seeking information is encoded in the clip information files that are bound to the stream and stored as separate files on the disc.

 

[David Saraceno]

Clipwrap 2, when released, can rewrap the AVCHD stream in QT.

But it's still h.264 with all the attendant editing problems.

 

[pailes]

Clipwrap 2, when released, can rewrap the AVCHD stream in QT.

As I said, you can already do it without Clipwrap but with ffmpeg. Maybe their tool even relies on ffmpeg as many tools do (e.g. VoltaicHD). But I'm almost sure that the reason why it's not out yet is because they need to solve the problems which I have described in my other post.

 

[sagedrummer]

Has anyone been using the ProRes Proxy setting to edit on your laptop and then just reimported using ProRes LT or 4444 for your final master? Is the time spent re-transfering the footage worth the space that it saves on your computer. I just got Final Cut Pro 7 and have a project I need to import and am debating the pros and cons of using ProRes Proxy.
Any thoughts?

 

[Thomas Lew]

Has anyone been using the ProRes Proxy setting to edit on your laptop and then just reimported using ProRes LT or 4444 for your final master? Is the time spent re-transfering the footage worth the space that it saves on your computer. I just got Final Cut Pro 7 and have a project I need to import and am debating the pros and cons of using ProRes Proxy.
Any thoughts?

Yeah I've thought about doing that. I think to do that process.. you would just transcode as proxy.. edit.. then transcode into the highest quality ProRes and reconnect all the files. Then it should be good right? I really want to try that.

:bath:

 

[Exact]

Wow - 10 pages - and what I was hoping we would eventually get to here was :

How quickly FCP 7 translates to ProRes LT vs ProRes 422 ------- did I miss it ?

I'm transcoding on an 8 core with 16GB RAM using internal SATA drives (not raid) and I'm getting about 70%-80% real time - i.e. if I am importing 50 minutes of footage it's taking 35-40 minutes to import and transcode with FCP6 using ProRes 422.

So, how much time would I gain by upgrading to FCP7, using ProRes LT, and can some one try to quantify the quality loss?