New Final Cut Pro Announcement at SuperMeet?

mcgeedigital said:
Most serious colorists i know, including Robbie Carman have transitioned to Resolve and aren't looking back.

I will be doing the same.
Click to expand...

I hear you. My problem is that I am not a professional colorist. I only do heavy color work for my indie film stuff, and I can't justify buying Resolve right now. I do use Color in a professional environment when I do one stop shop stuff though.
 
Hold on just a minute! What happened to all the fanboys that for the past TWO YEARS have been telling us Edius, Premiere and Vegas users that not only is transcoding AVCHD/h.264 not a big deal, but that most times you prefer to transcode because Prorez is so much better? Where'd you guys go? Hello? Did you stay home instead of going to the supermeet? because the crowd went nuts when they said no more transcoding and native h.264 support.... Did they scour the earth looking for FCP users who didn't like transcoding and ship them in? Were they hired to be there and cheer?
hehehe

You guys!
 
I'll never be one of those guys lol. Even if it can edit it, some of those codecs just suck once you start laying in effects and such. H264 is no codec to start messing with Color and all that crap...yikes.
 
Funny, but no one on here really seems to me to be much of a fan boy. I am sure there was plenty of that at the SuperMeet though ...
 
KyleProhaska said:
I'll never be one of those guys lol. Even if it can edit it, some of those codecs just suck once you start laying in effects and such. H264 is no codec to start messing with Color and all that crap...yikes.
Click to expand...

Yea, some formats don't really hold up to a lot of manipulation.
 
For inferior codecs with poor colorspace and very strong compression, transcoding to a superior one is the way to go. This is the consensus in most high end post productions. Native editing of h264 is good for fast edits, but nowhere near optimal for grading and color correction. I'm a bit concerned with this. Hope there's an option to keep importing and transcoding to prores inside Final Cut.
 
KyleProhaska said:
I'll never be one of those guys lol. Even if it can edit it, some of those codecs just suck once you start laying in effects and such. H264 is no codec to start messing with Color and all that crap...yikes.
Click to expand...

I agree... if I have to do much grading, I transcode to a better codec, but for most things it holds up well.
 
Right, what no one seems to mention here, is that even though you can now mix and match various codecs and media on the same timeline, what happens when it comes time to output? How is your output motor going to handle going from one source into another, because if there is one thing Apple has not said, it is what they are going to do to solve the huge Gamma shifts and buried artifacting issues from Quicktime. To date almost every single transcoding app uses Quicktime as it's motor, and that frankly is what still sucks.

Only 5DtoRGB converts in a different manner.

So what has Apple mentioned about stabilizing this very basic building block of their system? You better start asking this question if they do indeed intend on using Colorsync all the way through their new workflow.
 
I'm so glad I'm not in an environment where I have to mix different formats because I don't need it. I have zero need in editing 5 different kinds of codecs in one timeline. I know many do and that's fine, but if I'm doing a feature or video with Prores files as my main kind of source, then whatever else I need to put in there video wise I just transcode. It keeps things easier.

To be honest, the great strength that this new version has for someone like me is the 64-bit architecture, the new additions that are similar to Color, and a lot of the editing shortcuts. Beyond that, there isn't much that'll effect what I currently need or will likely need in the future.
 
yoclay said:
Right, what no one seems to mention here, is that even though you can now mix and match various codecs and media on the same timeline, what happens when it comes time to output?
Click to expand...

Actually, that was specifically mentioned here several times today. :) It's one of many unresolved questions, to be sure.
 
Postmaster said:
By the way, what happens to all those FCP Boxes still sitting on shelfs in the shops?

Devaluation? Prices in free fall? Who would still buy a FCPPro now?

Frank
Click to expand...

im sure there will be a good handful of people that wont want to move to FCP X and happy to still be able to get the last of the old.

david
 
KyleProhaska said:
I'm so glad I'm not in an environment where I have to mix different formats because I don't need it. I have zero need in editing 5 different kinds of codecs in one timeline.
Click to expand...

I have done doc work where I work with various archival formats, and I always transcode it. I would be asking for trouble not to do that.
 
blackcat said:
I hear you. My problem is that I am not a professional colorist. I only do heavy color work for my indie film stuff, and I can't justify buying Resolve right now. I do use Color in a professional environment when I do one stop shop stuff though.
Click to expand...

There's always the new free version of resolve. Only two nodes per clip but if done efficiently, you could get by. Once you discover what you've been missing, the relatively low cost won't seem so bad. If I was only coloring my own stuff, especially if it was features, I would still buy in just to save myself a ton of time. Time I could be using to make more films.
 
cheezweezl said:
There's always the new free version of resolve. Only two nodes per clip but if done efficiently, you could get by. Once you discover what you've been missing, the relatively low cost won't seem so bad. If I was only coloring my own stuff, especially if it was features, I would still buy in just to save myself a ton of time. Time I could be using to make more films.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you definitely need to have decent hardware behind it, the tracking is great for the Resolve, but super intensive for instance. iMacs and Macbooks are not going to deal well with it. This means having the right video cards, serious cal-digit style backup array systems and probably a tower. For personal stuff many folks just don't have the resources to make that kind of addtional investment merely for their grading application.
 
yoclay said:
...because if there is one thing Apple has not said, it is what they are going to do to solve the huge Gamma shifts and buried artifacting issues from Quicktime. To date almost every single transcoding app uses Quicktime as it's motor, and that frankly is what still sucks.

.
Click to expand...

But they said right at the beginning that they colorsync the footage on import, didn´t they.
 
I'm looking forward to it- from the presentation it looks like it edits more the way I think. This is the main reason I choose software products, and I often find that Apple's user interface designers think about things the way I do. Whereas Adobe's interface designers think about things in a completely different way, which often means I feel like I am banging my head against the software instead of riding the wave.

The key thing for me is going to be whether the claims about ColourSync work. The Quicktime Gamma bug had almost driven me to switch to PPro CS5 (which I have been trying out, and which I use for rough cuts and quick views of rushes of AF100 footage).

I like the look of doing much more stuff on the timeline (especially colour correction and basic sound functions like levels, fades, etc). As a one-man-band doing all the steps of the edit process for my films, that's an efficient way for me to work. I hope it doesn't lock out the higher-end pros who have to work in a team, but let's see what Apple can come up with for the rest of the suite and for input/output.

They've certainly convinced me to give it a whirl in June!

Cheers, Hywel.
 
cheezweezl said:
after watching the demo video, i'm impressed. admittedly, i'm less pissed off about the imovie interface than i was before i saw it. actually seems pretty badass for conventional editing. and having color (sort of) built in is a major plus for most people who see the current color as a hard to understand, unusable app.

however, for what i do, mostly music videos, i don't like having audio married to my video or cluttering up my timeline. i only want the actual music track playing and nothing else. i don't want that track to move, ever. and i don't want any clip i place on the timeline to ripple anything else down the timeline. where's the viewer? the idea of just throwing a clip in the timeline with no in/out points and trimming it in place while everything around it ripples, won't work for me. or.... how about if i have a clip in the timeline of a guy singing and i want to replace it with some b-roll? as of now, i load the b-roll up in the viewer, find a good start point, and hit f11. done. with no viewer, i'm a little concerned that my workflow just got f**ked. i am basing all of this just on what i know now, which isn't much. hopefully apple thought this through and realized that there are multiple ways to edit and not everyone wants what i just saw. i'm keeping my fingers crossed on this.

regarding color integrated. as i said, for most editors, this couldn't be better. but how about serious colorists that have chosen color as their platform (some using it since it was final touch). what do they do now? maybe the tools are in place but a lot of the interface is not. will these features work with a panel? building a library of stills and having access to recall and compare them with later shots is essential for keeping color continuity across a long timeline. color has this, does final cut? being able to save grades for later recall. being able to have multiple versions of a grade on each clip so you don't lose what you have when experimenting. these color-like features may be awesome but can you use them at the speed that you can in color or any other competing cc app? a client isn't going to pay you $100/hour to fumble around with the mouse and have to roll through menus to find comparison shots. as a working colorist, i'd be pretty pissed right now if color was still my bread and butter. thankfully i'm davinci now and all is good on that front.

maybe i'm wrong and maybe the other apps will be updated and available for purchase. if not, apple just dropped a huge bomb on a lot of working businesses. businesses that will be looking at other options now...
Click to expand...

I guess you just turn off "magnetic timeline"....the viewer is probably also there and on 2-screen-setups maybe even more. Apple will also still have 3-point editing implemented. I don´t think anything you used before is gone, it is just not shown on this presentation, why should they show it?
I trust Apple here. If they rewrote it they did for the pro-user. This is not an iOS software.
 
DimitriL said:
Style, properly done, aids content and function. It builds heuristic connections. It's not perfect, but taking a closer look at the new interface, the color choices immediately snapped my attention to content. Little things, like the waveform clipping functions in the timeline, are IMMENSELY useful without having spent minute one with the software.
Click to expand...

Yeah and it´s funny they basically copied a very old software on many features and even the colorscheme here: FAST/Pinnacle/AVID-Liquid Edition. It had the same grey,blue and in the same tone. It also had background rendering and quick-fades etc. It is funny that AVID had this software in its hands and now Apple runs with its ideas......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top