Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
APPLE FINAL CUT PRO:HomeFCP ForumFCP XFCPX TechniquesFCP TutorialsFC ServerBasics ForumPodcastFAQ

I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!

COW Forums : Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
Darren KellyI guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 3:23:12 am

Today I ordered Production bundle CS5.5. I made the decision to not go to FCPX, but leo the decision that there are better choices out in the market.

I also ordered a PC, the first in my company since before 2000.

To make a long story short, the computer system with 4GB of RAID, 6 cores (2.7) and one of the top video cards will be about $1,000-all in.

It will do something like 8 layers with effects and transitions without having to render. Basically real time compositing and editing. I had already switched from compressor to Adobe Media Encoder as it was much much faster than Compressor, and I go back to version 3.3 on AE, so it made sense.

Apple has, for me at least shown they are not in the Editing Software business for pro's, and I believe they have also decided they are not interested in the Desktop computer market. Once again Apple is about 500 days since their last MacPro. Prices are too high.

I'll keep my FCP system (a 27 inch 2.9 quad core iMac) It will be locked in time to what it has today.

I'll use my MacbookPro for communications, the web, etc and I'll treat the PC as a stand alone Editing device.

I wish the rest of you well in making your plans. I waited since Adobe reeased CS5 for apply to reply. 7 wasn't significant at all, adding nothing, and now FCPX is just starting over and looking for a new and different customer base.

Cheers

DBK


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Glen HurdRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 7:47:46 am

You might enjoy this :)







Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Dominic DeaconRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 9:08:10 am

I think the worst thing about this for Apple is that it's got Final Cut users looking round at the competition. When I got my first editing kit I was told by every single person I asked- including a bunch of industry pros- that it had to be Apple and it had to be Final Cut. AVID was apparently a mess, the rest were just toys and only a fool would consider doing serious graphics work on a PC. Since then I just assumed I was using the best gear and didn't look elsewhere.

Since the release of FCPX I've played with a bunch of the others and found that they're not just competitive with Final Cut 7 but they make it look archaic in many ways. That video is a great example of the advantages on some of the other platforms. On top of which they are just so much faster. In the end I went with Edius- I just need a pure video editor and don't need the gadgets- but was almost equally impressed with Avid and Premiere.

And PC hardware is seriously cheap. I got an i7 3.4ghz, 16gb RAM and nVidia graphics that runs all these programs lightning fast for significantly cheaper than the smallest iMac. The computers been as much of a revelation as the programs. Never crashes and no spinning beach balls. I hate the beach ball. It's very hard to justify the $2k plus (AUD) that Apple charges for the larger models.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 9:31:10 am

[Dominic Deacon] "I think the worst thing about this for Apple is that it's got Final Cut users looking round at the competition."

Agreed but that's because Apple left a void rather than a long term transition plan from FCS to FCPX. I think this is the crux of the problem. Apple didn't do this when they moved from OS9 to OSX nor PPC to Intel. I still can't help but believe something blew up internally. I can't see this as a deliberate plan as it doesn't follow any of their past history.

[Dominic Deacon] "that it had to be Apple and it had to be Final Cut. AVID was apparently a mess,"

I go back a lot farther and it's interesting to see how Avid went from dominant to mess. FCP was the toy. With third party support and improvements, FCP became a very cost effective alternative. Apple may be banking on that again but the roadmap must be different this time. Then it was Mac Avid users who were nervous about Avid's commitment to Mac and the cost of upgrading Avid vs getting a new FCP system.

Currently Apple's in a bit of a void. MacPros may be dated technology compared to current PC workstations. That will change but many people don't want to bank on uncertainty. There will be new and better MacPros but I suspect Apple is waiting for newer Intel chips. That's just my speculation though. Since Apple did an "instant kill" on FCS without a technical means to transition, they created a serious problem for themselves. It's easy for many facilities to justify moving to a more powerful PC and using Premiere or Avid. I think Apple will make major improvements to both software and hardware over the next year but many facilities can't wait. Even an FCS system on life support has limitations compared to the competition.

Apple's one hope is that the hardware and software improvements are a compelling cost and feature set and a marketing strategy to match.

[Dominic Deacon] "And PC hardware is seriously cheap. I got an i7 3.4ghz, 16gb RAM and nVidia graphics that runs all these programs lightning fast for significantly cheaper than the smallest iMac."

Granted one can get a more powerful PC than a Mac Pro and iMacs have limited expansion, I'd be cautious to generalize about price. Once you put together a powerful professional PC workstation it's not going to be that much cheaper than some Macs. Look at what a decked out HPZ400 or Z800 workstation costs. Consider why the cost what they do compared to other PCs.

I suspect Apple is banking on that most people moving to Premiere or Avid in the short term are not going through the major expense to move to Windows and that that would allow Apple to buy time to develop software to give people a compelling reason to upgrade their Macs to newer Macs when the time comes.Several things have to happen for that to come to pass though. Whether Apple succeeds is anybody's guess but I'd have to think the R&D going into FCPX is also happening concurrently with other software and hardware to attempt that roadmap.

None of this explains why Apple left themselves wide open with current MacPros and FCPX, to switch to Windows. Keep in mind that's only a small portion of the market segment in the short term. Many non broadcast/film pros may find FCPX on iMacs and MacBookPros, with multi core i7 and OpenCL GPUs, to be very powerful even if FCPX is "feature deficient" for many workflows.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Dominic DeaconRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 10:35:09 am

[Craig Seeman] " Once you put together a powerful professional PC workstation it's not going to be that much cheaper than some Macs. Look at what a decked out HPZ400 or Z800 workstation costs. Consider why the cost what they do compared to other PCs"

I'm not really a computer person- I'm a screenwriter primarily- and don't really grasp the difference between a "professional PC workstation" and what I've purchased. The parts I would assume are the most important- like the Intel processors and nVidia cards- are the same so what is it that sets these Professional PC workstations apart? Whatever the case, what I got for $AUD1,300 runs even complex processes in AE and AVID without pausing for breath and I suppose that's all I can ask of it.

[Craig Seeman] "I suspect Apple is banking on that most people moving to Premiere or Avid in the short term are not going through the major expense to move to Windows"

It might have been a good idea to wait and see what Apple has coming but that wasn't an option for me. I'm going to be editing a feature for the next 8 months or so and didn't want to go through that again with FCP 7 and an old iMac. Buying a new iMac at this moment felt like a serious gamble.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 10:48:40 am

[Dominic Deacon] "I'm not really a computer person- I'm a screenwriter primarily- and don't really grasp the difference between a "professional PC workstation" and what I've purchased."

Of course what you've purchased may be entirely adequate for you needs. One doesn't have to have a workstation. There are many things that make a workstation better suited for certain demanding situations ranging from ease of maintenance, component compatibility testing, power supply to support expansion, number of PCIe slots and lanes. It's possible that your system is perfectly adequate. The painful part would be finding out that it falls down in some specific workflow and you can't easily expand. For example, Blackmagic cards are tested compatible only with certain motherboards... but that may not be important if you're not using those cards for example.

[Dominic Deacon] "It might have been a good idea to wait and see what Apple has coming but that wasn't an option for me."

As is the case for others as well. Apple has a big void until FCPX and MacPros are updated. Some people can't wait and can't get buy using FCP7 which requires workflows that one wouldn't need with Premiere on an computer with CUDA supported GPU.

[Dominic Deacon] " I'm going to be editing a feature for the next 8 months or so and didn't want to go through that again with FCP 7 and an old iMac. Buying a new iMac at this moment felt like a serious gamble."

Eight months is a long time. As per the Keycode Media conference video, many facilities aren't making their purchasing decisions until November and Educational Institutions until next spring. Personally I wouldn't make a purchase now for a project starting in eight months. Of course one may want to go through a learning curve but both Avid and Premiere work on Mac and as you get closer to the date, you can jump based on the then available technologies. In eight months, Intel may have new CPUs out so even Windows computers may be better/faster than the current crop. Hardware gets dated so quickly that generally I'd recommend waiting until you hit the "must move" wall to make a hardware purchase.

It's quite possible that you'll get the ROI on your purchase within 8 months though, given what you paid, and then you can move again as needed.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Glen HurdRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 1:31:03 pm

[Craig Seeman] "It's quite possible that you'll get the ROI on your purchase within 8 months though, given what you paid, and then you can move again as needed."

Or it's quite possible that Adobe won't do anything so stupid as to force him to be hunting around for new solutions again. It's not just about riding the best horse in the race. It's also about riding a horse that doesn't stumble when you need it most.

Go read Philip Hodgett's piece on why, with FCP X, not only do we NOT need broadcast monitors for broadcast work, we don't even need to calibrate our monitors anymore - and that's after a conversation with his contacts at Apple.

Yeah, Apple's on the right track.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Dominic DeaconRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 12:34:09 am

[Craig Seeman] "Eight months is a long time."

No, I was saying that I'll be editing this feature for the next 8 months, not in 8 months time. That's how long it will take me as the footage will be drip fed.

I'm not sure what the realities are of being a professional editor in the broadcast world are as I've never even been to such a facility. I've edited 2 features and a few corporate videos for Hospitals, bars etc. and found that if you're just using your machine as a picture editor a cheap PC is all you need. Even AVCHD footage doesn't seem to push my system at all. Picture editing is all I do. At the end of the job everything gets farmed out to the sound guy and whoever is doing colour.

My decision on what to do was in the made for me by my DP who is more a part of that industry. He laughed when I told what people were telling me I needed and showed me what he was doing on his little PC laptop. This is a color grading tutorial he put together in Edius on that laptop that impressed the hell out of me: http://www.vimeo.com/28084356

When you're used to FCP7 labouring it's way through tasks on a desktop seeing someone get that kind of real time performance on a laptop is incredible and really shows how far behind the eight ball Apple was before they pulled out FCPX. And now with my work flows, simple as they are, they're not even in the game anymore.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Darren KellyRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 2:18:09 pm

"It might have been a good idea to wait and see what Apple has coming "


I considered that we waited long enough for Apple to show it's plans. By my count it was almost 18 months between 6 and the minor 7. Giving them more time will not make a difference.

DBK


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Dennis RadekeRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 10:57:27 am

[Craig Seeman] "
Granted one can get a more powerful PC than a Mac Pro and iMacs have limited expansion, I'd be cautious to generalize about price. Once you put together a powerful professional PC workstation it's not going to be that much cheaper than some Macs. Look at what a decked out HPZ400 or Z800 workstation costs. Consider why the cost what they do compared to other PCs."


I've seen this a couple of times from you Craig and I think you need to do a little more research on the PC side. In a general sense, you're absolutely right, a high-end, professional system cannot be had for chump change. However, to systematically dismiss the total cost of ownership differences between Mac and PC for ALL video editors isn't appropriate either.

There are a couple of key points that I would make here:
- A similarly equipped PC is generally less expensive than it's Mac counterpart. I was excited for a time when this wasn't so and Mac's were basically the same price, but it seems (again in general) that PC's costs are less expensive than similarly equipped Macs.
- The HP Z line (of which I am a huge fan) is a product line and not a single chassis with different guts like the current MacPro. This gives you a ton more pricing and configuration options. If you need to go cheap but have a PCI-E slot or two, you can go with the Z400. If you need more power and a slim chassis design, there is the Z600. If you need monster power (and a better tooless chassis) then there is the Z800.
- That 'decked out' PC that costs as much or more than a Mac Pro will generally run rings around the MacPro. This isn't a scientific fact from yours truly, just my general observations at having used both platforms for many years. Many other people have taken the time to run tests and I believe my statement has a lot of support.
- Choice...There are MANY more CPU, GPU and motherboard choices that you can make with any single vendor. In this tech-aware/educated world, we as content creators can make many of the choices that Apple makes for us. We can create the best balanced system (which is particularly important for Adobe users) for us based upon our current budget. This choice can also be represented by purchasing a PC from a vendor like HP, or a white-box from a video reseller or perhaps the most exciting of all - build your own box. On the Apple side, you have a choice of where you build the Mac - Apple website, Apple Store, Apple dealer: you get the same net results but not the same control and choice.

And since we're picking on HP and I've seen some FUD around it...even if HP spins of the PC unit to another company or as a new entity, it will be the largest PC company in the world. We've also seen a successful example of this in the past with IBM spinning off it's PC business to Lenovo.

Cheers,
Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Dennis RadekeRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 11:00:42 am

I'll toss this into the fire as well since I'm sounding very 'pro-pc' today (though I'm not!)... ;-)

I would be interested in comments on this article:
http://www.cringely.com/2011/08/is-the-mac-pro-dead/


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 11:12:04 am

[Dennis Radeke] "I'll toss this into the fire as well since I'm sounding very 'pro-pc' today (though I'm not!)... ;-)"

Dennis you certainly do sound pro PC and there's no shame in that. But there's the other side that some would argue. Limited hardware variation means easier support for many. Downtime costs money. Not everyone has an onsite engineer. Not everyone is an expert systems builder or troubleshooter.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David DobsonRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 10:43:21 pm

That article makes me giggle.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 11:05:11 am

[Dennis Radeke] "However, to systematically dismiss the total cost of ownership differences between Mac and PC for ALL video editors isn't appropriate either."

I didn't if you read my comment completely. I stated that his system might be entirely adequate for his needs. Many people don't need workstations. Please don't take my comments out of context.

One thing common to Macs is that they tend to be much more "inflexible" (limited options). You get what Apple gives you. Heck my own MacPro 2008 is using an ATI Radeon 5770 which Apple doesn't consider an "authorized" combination.

[Dennis Radeke] "- That 'decked out' PC that costs as much or more than a Mac Pro will generally run rings around the MacPro. "

While I didn't use that language I've said as much. Again please read what I wrote. I said MacPros are behind.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David Cherniack@Craig S.
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 12:28:16 pm

[Craig Seeman] " Once you put together a powerful professional PC workstation it's not going to be that much cheaper than some Macs. Look at what a decked out HPZ400 or Z800 workstation costs. Consider why the cost what they do compared to other PCs."

Craig, you keep tooting this horn, along with the rest of your repertoire of long play standards.

Those who follow this forum, and are reasonably knowledgeable, are aware of your biases...and your considerable rhetorical skills, not to mention a typing speed that must go well above 200 wpm. Does the lad work for a living? Despite being asked many times if Apple pays you, you haven't replied, probably because you don't want to dignify the question with a response, or maybe because you'd rather not admit to the nature of your relationship with the big red fruit. Either way, it doesn't effect the essence of what you have to say, just your personal integrity, an area wise people appropriately leave to you.

Some of your analyses are thoughtful so I always skim your multitude of daily replies for interesting nuggets while bypassing the zealotry of hope you invest in FCX. While I don't disagree with your vision...it may be or may not be true...the history of NLEs tells us it'll be a few years, not one or even two, before FCX will be a mature NLE, leaving aside the speculation whether Apple ever intends to play in the high end.

A historical rule of thumb for the time frame of NLE development to maturity is four or five versions at 12 to 18 months per version. While Apple has the resources to throw at it to reduce the time, there's a law of diminishing returns when more bodies are added. The problem is the complexity of functions that the NLE must provide across the wide spectrum of use that exists in the marketplace. Combine that with the second rule of thumb: that the architectural design of version 1.0 of an NLE sets a course that is difficult to change substantively, and you're seeing today what FCX is going to resemble down the road. (In other words, those who dream of Apple providing the option of a fixed track timeline are probably dreaming an unlikely dream. BTW I know that's not you, who invests a hope in the trackless paradigm.)

Now as to your assertions above, " Once you put together a powerful professional PC workstation it's not going to be that much cheaper than some Macs. Look at what a decked out HPZ400 or Z800 workstation costs. Consider why the cost what they do compared to other PCs."

The reason why HP worksations cost more than other PCs is two-fold, they put a similar amount of effort into design as Apple does with Mac Pros but on top of that they throw in top notch technical support by phone and 24 hour on site replacement. Yes, I know, they're exploring selling off the division. So? That just speaks to the general profitability of workstations. The real money is in low cost gadgets. And Thunderbolt, that you keep harping on about, that's gong to future proof the Mac Pro? You don't think that the technology won't be on PCs? Sure, there may be a lag due to some unknown deal between Apple and Intel. Same thing that existed between Apple and Red and look what happened to that. A few years later Premiere Pro runs rings around FCP with Red material. Plus one can go to other providers to get the same performance without nearly the cost of the HP (or the Mac Pro, for that matter, without the disadvantage of the limited hardware ecosystem.)

So overall while you seed your comments with a certain amount of objective reasonableness, and admit your biases, the smoke you blow with your rhetoric should be inhaled with a thick, environmentally approved, filter of scepticism.

David,
NLE use: 21 years and counting.
Present NLE: Adobe CS5 on a rock solid Intel workstation board and rack mounted system that has biases, but no significant complaints.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3


Craig SeemanRe: @Craig S.
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 12:52:24 pm

[David Cherniack] "Does the lad work for a living? "
Far too many hours actually. It's amazing how much time one has to type when doing compression though.
I don't work for or have any direct business relationship or contact with Apple.

[David Cherniack] " And Thunderbolt, that you keep harping on about, that's gong to future proof the Mac Pro? You don't think that the technology won't be on PCs? "

Sony has already announced support and they're building into a/some Sony Vaio laptops. HP has said no to Thunderbolt but who knows where that might go now if workstations are part of the spinoff sales. Actually for Thunderbolt to be well supported by third parties it has to command a profitable segment of the market (must include PCs). I do think Apple's got a head start given their apparent relationship with Intel. As to whether that head start has an impact on Mac sales remains to be seen. I don't think Apple is operating without a plan.

Again my comments are guided by Apple being an extremely motivated company when it comes to making money. That does not mean market share though. I do think the R&D in FCPX and hardware are not without a plan which may or may not be well executed. Apple is one of the very few companies that can pull rabbits out of hats. That doesn't mean it happens all the time but FCPX and Thunderbolt are not "throw aways." That's not something that Apple does whether they succeed or fail. In fact the one thing that falls to that level is AppleTV which Apple has been upfront about calling a "hobby."



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David CherniackRe: @Craig S.
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 1:58:20 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Again my comments are guided by Apple being an extremely motivated company when it comes to making money."

True for all corporate entities, alas poor world.

The things is though, that software, especially extremely complicated software such as NLEs, is expensive to develop and the profit margin for Mac Pros, on which FCX may eventually run at the higher end of the market, is much smaller than for iPads. The whole tablet market is a new one and the prices and margins are high until they shrink from the pressure of cut rate competition. Apple can command a premium mark-up at present for iMacs and tablets because of its leading edge design and cultish fan base. Those things don't last forever (That Samsung is leap frogging them by a large amount in pads and phones can be attested to by Apple's patent suits trying to slow them down.)

So I think your optimism about the future of FCX is not necessarily justified by the pursuit of profits argument, unless its at the lower end of the market.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: @Craig S.
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 2:33:35 pm

[David Cherniack] "So I think your optimism about the future of FCX is not necessarily justified by the pursuit of profits argument, unless its at the lower end of the market."


I've posted elsewhere my estimation on where they're headed with MacPro (or what will replace it) and I suspect that will give the wider sales and possibly bigger margins. It will have a lower point of entry, my guess.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David CherniackRe: @Craig S.
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 2:37:56 pm

[Craig Seeman] " It will have a lower point of entry, my guess"

But not necessarily higher profit margins. The desktop market is that much more competitive, after all.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: @Craig S.
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 3:04:41 pm

[David Cherniack] "But not necessarily higher profit margins. The desktop market is that much more competitive, after all."

I think Apple can cut costs although Apple doesn't reveal margins for specific computers.
Think of a MacMini with one or two 16 lane PCIe slots for GPUs, SSD boot and one hard drive. three thunderbolt ports with a possible fourth being fiber thunderbolt. A basic i7 4 core system might be competitive with the higher end iMac prices. Top price might be a little lower than top MacPro.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David CherniackRe: @Craig S.
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 3:33:01 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Think of a MacMini with one or two 16 lane PCIe slots for GPUs, SSD boot and one hard drive...."

Think of a similarly equipped PC costing less...Apple has to depend on its fan base to maintain its slight premium. My point is there's much more money to be made by them in tablets and phones...at least until those markets encounter greater competition. Apple will likely concentrate there. My old argument that prestige matters to them essentially became null and void on June 21.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: @Craig S.
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 3:45:26 pm

[David Cherniack] "Think of a similarly equipped PC costing less"

Currently there is nothing matching the description. That may change but there are no Thunderbolt desktops on Windows. Only a Sony Vaio laptop at the moment. Apple will have a multiport Thunderbolt desktop. It's success will depend on the viability of the Thunderbolt market. I think they may gamble in that direction because the "traditional" desktop (MacPro) likely isn't very profitable.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David CherniackRe: @Craig S.
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 4:14:22 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Currently there is nothing matching the description. That may change but there are no Thunderbolt desktops on Windows. Only a Sony Vaio laptop at the moment. Apple will have a multiport Thunderbolt desktop. It's success will depend on the viability of the Thunderbolt market."

And there's nothing matching your further description of a thunderbolt desktop on the market yet, either.

This is good example of your rhetorical style - the subtle shift in frame of reference that colors your argument. Have you thought about changing careers to write political speeches? I recommend it :)

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: @Craig S.
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 4:22:30 pm

[David Cherniack] "Have you thought about changing careers to write political speeches? I recommend it :)"

There's more truth to that then you realize but I won't go there, here.

[David Cherniack] "And there's nothing matching your further description of a thunderbolt desktop on the market yet, either. "

No, but if you look at Apple's direction it's clear to me that the MacPro in its current form doesn't have much further to go. The question then becomes, what do you thing it'll be replaced with, if anything. Given thunderbolt and that no other Mac computer has PCIe slots as we know it, I think that's what's going to go away.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David DobsonRe: @Craig S.
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 11:41:54 pm

"With Thunderbolt, you’re just as likely to build a professional video setup around your MacBook Pro or iMac as your Mac Pro. " -- From http://www.apple.com/thunderbolt/

So clearly the Mac Pro is EOL.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: @Craig S.
by on Sep 8, 2011 at 12:28:17 am

[David Dobson] "So clearly the Mac Pro is EOL."

I believe it'll be replaced with something else. I've posted numerous times what this would probably look like on various threads but obviously it's like finding a needle in a haystack (hey stack given this forum?).

There's still a need for good GPU CPU so it'll be.

Look something like an oversized MacMini.
It'll range from i7 four core ti i7 12 core (possibly more)
It'll have one or two 16 lane PCIe for internal very fast powerful GPU or two.
SSD boot drive with one traditional hard drive.
RAM ranging from 4GB to a very high number.
It'll have 3 copper thunderbolt ports and one fiber thunderbolt port (something Intel has already said they intend to deliver at 100Gbps I believe)
It can lay flat or upright (with stand).
It will have a rack mount add on.

It will appeal to anyone who wants a "headless" iMac at the low end to a workstation to a server.
The idea is Apple will cut costs on internal components, make it smaller and sleeker, will cover a broader range of needs than the MacPro. It'll have a starting price slightly lower than the top i7 Quad Core iMac ranging to a top price still lower than the current top priced MacPro.

Wider appeal, lower price range, nice sleek design. The closest Apple can come to in making a commodity power box.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: @Craig S.
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 4:43:15 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Think of a MacMini with one or two 16 lane PCIe slots for GPUs, SSD boot and one hard drive. three thunderbolt ports with a possible fourth being fiber thunderbolt. A basic i7 4 core system might be competitive with the higher end iMac prices. Top price might be a little lower than top MacPro."

[Craig Seeman] "Currently there is nothing [on the PC platform] matching the description. That may change but there are no Thunderbolt desktops on Windows. Only a Sony Vaio laptop at the moment. Apple will have a multiport Thunderbolt desktop. It's success will depend on the viability of the Thunderbolt market."

ThunderBolt might be a red herring here.

Let's assume for a moment that Apple builds your new mostly-ThunderBolt, highly-expandable, mini Mac Pro. Let's further assume that ThunderBolt does not become widely-adopted on the PC platform. Would that put the entire PC platform at a disadvantage?

I don't think so. PCs could simply continue to offer internal PCIe slots. Internal expansion would still be cheaper (or higher margin), since you wouldn't need internal TB controllers, separate external enclosures, or expensive active cables for every single device you want to add.

I agree that it is certainly simpler to plug in a single cable than it is to add a PCIe card. External expansion might make computer cases a little smaller, too (though multiple processors, GPUs, memory slots, and all the attendent power and cooling constraints are significant factors in case design).

That said, I don't see how ThunderBolt will lower the TCO for video production, or the costs for manufacturers. I think it will actually add costs (buying you simplicity), and will only increase expansion options for a single computer if you need to connect more than half a dozen high-speed peripherals.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: @Craig S.
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 4:58:51 pm

It'll hit several market niches which is something a MacPro can't do at the moment.
Smaller form factor for those who don't like towers.
High speed connectivity to a central networked brain (server san) without the local bulk.
More power and flexibility than the iMac.

[Walter Soyka] "will only increase expansion options for a single computer if you need to connect more than half a dozen high-speed peripherals."
and it may be the best solution for that market niche. It might be rack mountable in that form factor as well.

Price? The base MacBookAir at $999 has a Thunderbolt port. I don't think the port itself drives up the price that much. I haven't seen any price increase in Apple's product line as a result of the port. I think Apple believes it will increase sales. Previous computers with limited expandability now can use peripherals they were locked out of. On the other hand the new computer will have more expansion than a current MacPro and I believe will cost less for the equivalent (or better) power.

Such a box makes far more sense for Apple than a tower with PCIe slots. It'll reach users how need the power and may or may not need the expansion as well as those who want a base unit with a smaller form factor.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Michael HancockRe: @Craig S.
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 5:39:33 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I don't think the port itself drives up the price that much."

It might not for Apple, but I believe it will for the consumer.

One thunderbolt cable costs about $50, and new Macs don't come with a cable. If you have to buy separate modules you need to add another $50 to the cost of each one to connect it. If you could buy a Thunderbolt GPU it would be the cost of the GPU module + cable or the cost of the cable would be included with the module, making that GPU module more expensive than purchasing just the GPU alone.

Or buy a system with a couple PCIE slots, buy your GPU and plug it into an existing PCIE slot - no additional connection cost there. The cost of the modular Mac would have to be low enough to offset the increased cost of module design, cooling, and cabling.

If you end up needing 6 thunderbolt cables, you're adding $300 to the cost in cabling alone. I'd expect each module to be a little more expensive, too - just as a bare internal hard drive is much cheaper than an external one. The cost of the case, design, etc...drives the cost up.

Is this where Apple will make money, though? I imagine the profit margins for cases and cabling would be pretty high. From a consumer standpoint, however, it's suddenly gotten a whole lot more expensive.

Something to consider. Modular could easily be a lot more expensive -just like FCPX costs about $800 if you need OMF export.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: @Craig S.
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 5:46:08 pm

Miniaturization is the defining trend in consumer technology, but it comes at the cost of power. If Apple can take the power of today's Mac Pro and cram it in a machine half the size, couldn't they instead double the power of today's Mac Pro in the current form factor?

Personally, I'd rather see the next Mac Pro be a quad-socket monster, not today's machine in a smaller package.

If we're going to talk about workstations, we need to keep the conversation broader than video editorial. The machine that you're describing would be great for many segments of the market, but would be a step back for other segments that prioritize performance.

It almost sounds like the return of the Cube, which didn't go so well the first time around. It sat confusingly between the consumer and professional lines -- overpowered and thus too costly for a consumer machine, but not powerful enough for a pro machine.


[Craig Seeman] "Price? The base MacBookAir at $999 has a Thunderbolt port. I don't think the port itself drives up the price that much."

Think about the costs on the device end, though. Every device will be adding a TB controller, an enclosure, an expensive active TB cable, and possibly a power adapter, too, on top of the PCIe hardware they are already building. None of these are extreme costs, but they will demand an increase in price, just as external hard drives do over internal hard drives.


[Craig Seeman] "On the other hand the new computer will have more expansion than a current MacPro and I believe will cost less for the equivalent (or better) power."

The current Mac Pro with 4 slots / 40 lanes of PCIe is not the gold standard of expansion. This is an area that deserves improvement. Looking forward to increased GPGPU, more high-speed slots will be an asset.


[Craig Seeman] "Previous computers with limited expandability now can use peripherals they were locked out of."

This I agree with -- TB improves the capabilities of portable machines drastically.


[Craig Seeman] "Such a box makes far more sense for Apple than a tower with PCIe slots."

It may make more sense for Apple, but that's not my concern. What makes more sense for power users?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


alban eggerRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 10:04:25 am

[Dominic Deacon] "And PC hardware is seriously cheap. I got an i7 3.4ghz, 16gb RAM and nVidia graphics that runs all these programs lightning fast for significantly cheaper than the smallest iMac. The computers been as much of a revelation as the programs. Never crashes and no spinning beach balls. I hate the beach ball. It's very hard to justify the $2k plus (AUD) that Apple charges for the larger models."

That is misleading. I build systems for Edius and I use FCP in all flavors.

If you tried to build a machine similar to a MacPro in terms of built-quality, metal-housing, cooling layout, power parts etc you would reach Apple prices. Once you get to the iMac you are not having a chance to build such a machine WITH a comparable screen for that price.

It´s true you can build a powerful machine and buy Win7 and have it running for half the price of an Apple, but it won´t be the same value still. And don´t get me started on the differences of the OS (although Lion is a duck right now).



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 8:42:17 am

[Darren Kelly] "To make a long story short, the computer system with 4GB of RAID, 6 cores (2.7) and one of the top video cards will be about $1,000-all in."

A well equipped HP Z400 would cost more than that. It's not clear what, if any, corners you might have cut. Is your GPU a nice nVidia card so you can take advantage of CUDA?

If you're a follower of this forum it is my subjective opinion that FCPX and future desktops will be quite suitable for many "professional" workflows. Granted the future is not the present so I don't question the move you and others must make. Do make sure that your PC is appropriately equipped. In my own price hunting, PCs aren't that much less expensive than some comparably equipped Macs and can even be more expensive, because you can add much more to the. BTW I think Thunderbolt has an impressive future as video i/o and fast storage is released for it.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Gary HuffRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 1:09:47 pm

Some of us can actually build our own PCs and don't experience any more downtime than a Mac with similar hardware would have if a component went out (plus, my PC doesn't have that "issue" like the new Mac Pros where the mouse doesn't work right if you have two monitors running on it).

I just spec'ed out my next upgrade (since I have a PC, I can just change out the guts and not the whole unit itself) and for the price of a basic Mac Pro tower, I can get Dual Xeon i7s (12 cores), Samsung SSD primary drive (the current speed leader), 16GB of DDR3 EEC RAM, and a GTX580, along with the new X-Fi Titanium HD sound card. Frankly, nothing Apple currently offers can compete, speed-wise, and I shudder to think what that would do with Premiere CS5.5 and H.264 footage (in a good way of course).

Plus, on my PC I have a Blu-ray burner, two DVD burners, and two external hard drive bays. Something else you can't really do with a Mac Pro, but that comes in handy on a regular basis. Now, more than ever, we have choices. But I just wonder if Apple will remove that choice before too long by not even offering typical workstations anymore.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Tim WilsonRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 2:39:34 pm

[Dominic Deacon] "Since the release of FCPX I've played with a bunch of the others and found that they're not just competitive with Final Cut 7 but they make it look archaic in many ways. That video is a great example of the advantages on some of the other platforms. On top of which they are just so much faster."

I could have quoted any number of folks above for a similar reply.

I've owned Macs since February of 1984, but when I was working for a developer who was using only Macs but starting to move into GPU acceleration, we were all blown away by the performance of a 5-year old PC that had been gathering dust in the corner. It was anywhere from 4 to 10 times faster than a top-of-the-line Mac.

Not for processing with the CPU of course. A new Mac beat a 5-year old PC running away. But as processing power increasingly moves to the graphics card, Mac users like me and many of you will find ourselves falling further and further behind. Apple has never yet been interested in supporting the very fastest graphics cards on the market.

Anyone taking bets on whether the next Macs will be the first in history to commit to supporting the fastest graphics cards on the market?

I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro, but well aware of what HP and others are doing with balls out GPU speed. Hey, and have you seen those HP laptops with the DreamColor monitors built in?

Apologies for making similar observations on other threads, but I think that this is the biggest sea change in our industry's history. Desktop video started on Macs, and Macs will always be part of it, but this is the first time that video production pros -- traditionally some Mac's hardest-core fans -- are looking at moving to PCs for exactly the same reasons they have used Macs: heavy-duty, bang for buck, committed to pros.

(Disclosure I shouldn't need to make, but will anyway: yes, HP is a COW advertiser. Apple has been too...although it has been years since they've advertised in any pro-oriented publications or sites. I'm speaking strictly here as a money=mouth kinda guy, on my own behalf, and not for the COW.)


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

Richard CardonnaRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 4:28:18 pm

. Desktop video started on Macs

If I am not mistaken the first video pc was "The Amiga"

Richard


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Tim WilsonRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 6:02:56 pm

[Richard Cardonna] "If I am not mistaken the first video pc was "The Amiga""

Maybe a little. :-)

You're right that the Toaster was revolutionary, but less for editing imo than switching, keying and CG than editing.

It was introduced in 1990. Avid Media Composer was built around the Mac II, shown in 1988, shipped in 1989.

(The EditDroid in 1984 was earlier, but there were only 24 built, and not running on an off-the-shelf personal computer - more a precursor than the actual revolution.)

Since I see Toaster as a sidestep more into production than post, I'm going to stick with a family line that goes through Macromind Mediamaker (1991, before the company changed its name to Macromedia 92) and Adobe Premiere, through to Media 100 (arguably the first true desktop video system to deliver finished-quality broadcast video) and Final Cut Pro -- all originally Mac-only, and proudly so.

In the meantime, no Windows developer reasonably expected to win over a Mac customer. I can't imagine that the dual platform developers at Adobe and Avid expected a single platform migration. Adding Windows into a mostly-Mac mix, sure. Dropping Mac, never. There was nothing that any of them could do to make a Mac fan leave the platform.

So which is the company that has, for the first time in NLE history, made a meaningful percentage of the highest-end, most passionate Apple loyalists seriously consider leaving Macs to adopt Windows?

Apple, that's who.

Nobody, least of all me, is suggesting that migrators will ever be the majority. But it's now squarely one of the mainstream options to consider as Mac people contemplate their future relationship to Apple....or more precisely, Apple's future relationship to them.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 6:29:11 pm

Wikipedia:

Non-linear editing with computers as we know it today was first introduced by Editing Machines Corp. in 1989 with the EMC2 editor; a hard disk based non-linear off-line editing system, using half-screen resolution video at 15 frames per second. A couple of weeks later that same year, Avid introduced the Avid/1.

The EMC2 (2 for squared) was a PC and the first NLE. I used it for many years, it was the first of many EOL's I have lived thru, but alas, not the last.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Tim WilsonRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 9:35:23 pm

I'll stick with Media Composer being introduced at NAB in 88, even if it didn't ship until a couple of weeks after EMC. :-)

That said, we're splitting hairs here, and I admit that I should have been more careful with my language. Still, the gist is true. Not only did Henry Ford NOT invent the car -- I don't know if he was one of the first ten at the party. Thomas Edison didn't invent the lightbulb, and Peter Frampton didn't invent that thing where you put a tube in your mouth while you play the electric guitar. But they stuck the landing in a meaningful-enough way that the people before them are seen as precursors, and their peers as variants.

THAT said, while I'm sticking to my guns that the landing for desktop video was stuck longest and loudest on Mac, and by no means exclusively, I really don't want to be seen as a Mac pimp. While I built my own video production company around Macs, my opinion is that Apple lost its pro-focus a long time before FCP 7 shipped, for deeper reasons than typically come up...but have on this thread, and this one too.

Thanks for all the fish, indeed.

Anyone else wants to have the last word on this sub-thread is welcome to it. :-) The main part of the thread is the one that deserves the spotlight.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 9:51:45 pm

"I'll stick with Media Composer being introduced at NAB in 88, even if it didn't ship until a couple of weeks after EMC. :-)"

I'll settle for a tie.

I'm just sticking up for the long forgotten Editing Machines Corporation. This whole conversation got me remembering my EMC2 days, not unhappily, and I sent off a note to Bill Ferster, original designer, that contained this line:

"There were features on the EMC2 that I still miss to this day - such as the ripple wall, the EDL view, the timecode scratch pads and the ability to easily set offsets for multi-cam sources."

So, a salute to the betamax of NLEs.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris HarlanRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 10:59:54 pm

To quibble just a little--a number of successful early NLE's were PC based. Lightworks and the Montage3, which used Intel's ActionMedia card, were both successful film/tv NLEs out here in LA at the beginning of the 90s, and certainly drew people to use them.

As for 1st broadcast quality, my memory tells me that it is something like the old DPS PVR card and maybe Speed Razor on the PC. Hard to check with Google, though, as what conversations existed were on extinct bbs and services like Compuserve. Man, I used to love Compuserve.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris ConleeRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 7:18:31 pm

And quite impressive at that. Way ahead of its time. I ran MovieShop on a Draco (Amiga clone) for years.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Darren KellyRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 2:44:14 pm

One of my thoughts was that Apple will not be doing much with it's towers anymore. There is an increasing amount of time between new releases, and their software is designed for the lowest level Mac.

Apple have stopped developing software for towers. No FCP8, No Logic, No shake..... Why would they need to build a tower anymore. Who's going to use it?

Like I said before. All good comments. A good read.

DBK


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 3:19:19 pm

[Darren Kelly] "Why would they need to build a tower anymore. Who's going to use it?"

They may not. I've posted my thoughts about this on a couple of other threads. Tower isn't necessary for speed and expansion.

MacMini but larger. One or two 16 lane PCIe slots for GPUs. SSD boot with one internal drive. Maybe three copper thunderbolt ports and one fiber. Ranging from i7 4 core up to i7 12 core. In other words they will attempt to create a powerful system (a few models) with no internal expansion beyond the GPU and RAM as an attempt to commodify the box so they can sell to a bit wider market at a lower price than the current MacPros.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Marc FisherRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 7:04:20 pm

"Plus, on my PC I have a Blu-ray burner, two DVD burners, and two external hard drive bays. Something else you can't really do with a Mac Pro, but that comes in handy on a regular basis."

seriously, i thought this was a pros and cons thread about FCP-X
you all have turned it into a Mac vs PC war.

oddly though Gary, I've had a Blu-ray burner hooked up to my Mac Pro (2006 1.1) model for more than a year already. I also have 2 internal dvd-burners, mostly because i refuse to get rid of the old, replaced one, so i just put them into the open bays I have. I have 4 sata drives internally, and I added a PCI-E sata card to get external drives hooked up.

To top this off, I have 2 graphics card running in my machine to run Davinci Resolve. (and I don't get driver conflicts like most PCs would).
Oh, and here's a great one that PC cannot claim, I can run Windows 7, just as well on my Mac as I can run Mac OS X, (or even Linux), and it IS supported by Apple.
So that means for the investment of a mac pro, i get the best of all three worlds, and in my field, that means a lot.

oh, and btw, while all these price comparison are being thrown around, esp about how expensive things are at Apple, who the hell ever buys RAM form Dell or HP?



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Gary HuffRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 10:26:05 pm

[Marc Fisher]oddly though Gary, I've had a Blu-ray burner hooked up to my Mac Pro (2006 1.1) model for more than a year already. I also have 2 internal dvd-burners, mostly because i refuse to get rid of the old, replaced one, so i just put them into the open bays I have. I have 4 sata drives internally, and I added a PCI-E sata card to get external drives hooked up.

I didn't intend to say you couldn't have that, just that's it's all internal bays without having to have external devices, which you cannot do with a Mac Pro.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 10:31:31 pm

[Gary Huff] "I didn't intend to say you couldn't have that, just that's it's all internal bays without having to have external devices, which you cannot do with a Mac Pro."

OWC sells internal Blu-ray kits for MacPro
http://eshop.macsales.com/search/internal+blu+ray


The only thing that's been missing is the ability to play Blu-ray video on Mac but event that can be done now.
http://www.macblurayplayer.com/index.htm



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Gary HuffRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 11:28:30 pm

Okay, let me be clear on this:

Put three optical drives (one Blu-ray, 2 DVDs) and two internal SATA hard drive bays in your Mac Pro, please, accessible from the front of the unit.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Marc FisherRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 5:51:25 am

gary, i'm not sure i follow you then, i certainly can put my blu-ray internal, I happen to have mine external because I'd like to be able to move my blu-ray around to other machines..



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Gary PollardRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 11:10:04 pm

[Marc Fisher] "who the hell ever buys RAM form Dell or HP?" ... who the hell ever buys Apple's own RAM at its exorbitant prices, when it's generic anyway? I certainly don't.

____

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Gerald BariaRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 11:59:03 am

Is there really an NLE on windows which can use 12 cores of CPU?? Can adobe CS5.5 do it? Avid? Edius? I know FCPX can because of Grand Central Dispatch tech by Apple..as it can use not only all of the cores in the CPU but also all of thecores in the GPU. Do they have something similar in windows? Cause if there isnt, whats the point of a montrous build for a windows NLE? 4 cores and lots of ram may be enough.

Quobetah
New=Better


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Dave LaRondeRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 2:43:20 pm

[Gerald Baria] "Is there really an NLE on windows which can use 12 cores of CPU?? Can adobe CS5.5 do it?"

It sure can. Combined with an Nvidia Quadro card, the throughput of storage becomes the limiting factor in realtime playback.

Then there's After Effects, Audition, Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash... you get the idea.
The one significant absence in the Adobe suite of tools is a 3D modeling, rendering and animation application. I guess Adobe figures creating a new one would be like spitting in the wind.

Dave LaRonde
Sr. Promotion Producer
KCRG-TV (ABC) Cedar Rapids, IA


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Tim WilsonRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 10, 2011 at 7:23:40 pm

[Dave LaRonde] "[Gerald Baria] "Is there really an NLE on windows which can use 12 cores of CPU?? Can adobe CS5.5 do it?"

It sure can. "


Premiere supports 12 cores of CPU, AND 448 CUDA cores on the NVIDIA Quadro 6000, which also has 6GB of memory in the frame buffer.

The beefiest Mac card (Quadro 4000) has 256 CUDA cores and 2GB frame buffers.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Darren KellyRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 2:39:18 pm

This what I bought BTW.

HP Pavilion Elite AMD Phenom II Six Core 1045T Computer (HPE-500F): $399.00
AMD 6 Core@ 2.7, 8GB of RAM, 1.5TB hard drive(7200rpm) Windows 7 64

I upgraded the PowerSupply to a 700Wat: $58.00

Changed the Video card to a GTX 570: $339.00

Added 2 X 2TB hard drives on sale(7200rpm, 32 GB Buffer: $180.00

Total: $976.00

And for you boys down south, that;'s in Canadian Dollars! Find a Mac with this power for anywhere close to combination. Technically, it will be more than fine, more than powerful. I might downgrade the video card to save $200, as I am learning that CS 5.5 only uses a max of 96 CUDA cores.

I would have upgraded my Apple CS4 production bundle anyway, so it's not a factor.

I edited going all the way back to 1/2 reel to reel tape(70's). My first NLE was a Fast Video Machine - 1994. When I left the PC previously for Macdom, I lost multiple channels in real-time. I waited 12 years for Apple to see the light. This abomination called FCPX - that did it for me.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Macs, iPad, iPhone, and the virus freeness of the Mac. It will remain on my desk for things including the internet, mail, etc.

I'm not saying jump ship to anyone. I'm just saying for me, The idea of 8-9 streams, with FX and transitions in Real-Time suggested I should try it. If I hate it, I still have my FCP7 set up and a decent i7 iMac.

Interesting read though

Thanks for the comments

DBK


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 4:02:53 pm

[Darren Kelly] "HP Pavilion Elite AMD Phenom II Six Core 1045T Computer (HPE-500F): $399.00
AMD 6 Core@ 2.7, 8GB of RAM, 1.5TB hard drive(7200rpm) Windows 7 64"


Just so we are comparing apples-to-apples, so to speak, this is a consumer-level (or gamer) machine and really shouldn't be compared on even footing with a Mac Pro. You should look into the Z series workstations on HP's small-to-medium business site if you want a production-oriented, robust machine. Then make sure you don't need things like FW800 connectivity. One of the big pluses on the SMB machines is that they usually include 3-year warranties.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Darren KellyRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 4:18:18 pm

"Just so we are comparing apples-to-apples, so to speak, this is a consumer-level (or gamer) machine and really shouldn't be compared on even footing with a Mac Pro"


Give me a break. Honestly. This machine is in the same class as any MacPro out there right now, with the exception of the 12 core, $6K machine. OOps, I didn't buy something with FW 800. That's a $10 card in an empty slot if I need it. Everything I have that connects also talks USB, and my external raid has E-Sata, which is also a $20 card in an empty slot.

One thing I never became was a Mac Snob. It isn't better because Steve Jobs says it is. When will you stop drinking the Kool-Aid!

This system will do 8 or more layers in RT. You can do it on a Mac, provided you buy an Nvidia card off the list, and Premiere Pro. If I had a spare $4K sitting around, which I don't, maybe I would have gone Mac, but my current feeling is that Apple has jumped from Computer and Software maker, to Consumer Electronics Company. That's their choice.

This is how I responded to their decision.

DBK


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 4:51:45 pm

[Darren Kelly] "Give me a break. Honestly. This machine is in the same class as any MacPro out there right now, with the exception of the 12 core, $6K machine."

Wow. Touchy! In my household at this point in time, we collectively own 2 Macs, 2 HPs, 1 Sony and 1 Lenevo. We've had an old W series HP workstation (preceded the Z series) that's been a real workhorse. I'm not saying that the choice you are making is a bad one, but that machine is NOT the same level of design or engineering or build construction as a Mac Pro or a Z series machine. When I priced a Mac Pro against a similarly configured Z, the Mac Pro has typically been cheaper.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Darren KellyRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 5:22:16 pm

"but that machine is NOT the same level of design or engineering or build construction as a Mac Pro or a Z series machine"

I'm not a design guy when it comes to my computer. First, I rarely see it, second if it makes the same color of money, it's fine by me.

All I want to do is make the maximum amount of money for the minimum amount of $$ output. I know this machine will do it. If I'm wrong..... I'll order a Z class, just to make you happy OK?

I've built my own PC's between 1994 and 2000. I've maintained PC's since 1994. This machine with the upgrades I have ordered will handle the job as well as anything. You're comment about firewire, and the constant talk about Thunderbolt - is anyone around here remember how powerful FW1600 and FW3200 was going to be? What, they never made them!!! How about Fibre Channel. Apple swore by it, developed $12K raids - of which I owned one - now they no longer support it.

The industry has adopted USB3 and ESATA. It is still on the fence regarding Thunderbolt. Way easier to install a couple of drives and create a RAID, than using external drives. I'm coming from a standpoint of using SCSI, and buying my first 2 X 2GB drives for over $4K.

Anyway, I'm done on this thread. Keep arguing if you guys like. See you all in the Premiere forum sometime.

DBK


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 5:28:01 pm

A lot of what you're paying for with the Z series is security - not just their excellent product support and build quality but the fact that their products are the ones card and software manufacturers often test their gear on.

However this "safety net" is costing you upwards of 2K per machine.

You can find reputable VAR's on the web that will build, install, test and support fully configured NLE systems that cost way, way less than a MacPro or a Z series.

The only question you have to ask yourself is how much is it worth to you to know that you spent the most to buy the best on those days when nothing is working and you have deadlines to meet.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Gary PollardRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 11:16:27 pm

[Darren Kelly] "One thing I never became was a Mac Snob. It isn't better because Steve Jobs says it is. When will you stop drinking the Kool-Aid!"

One thing that many people are not acknowledging here is that Apple's quality control has gone seriously downhill over the past few years. Maybe Foxconn has something to do with it.

At a recent meeting with five Mac user friends I was the ONLY one who had not had to send his computer in for servicing or exchange in the past six months. And three of those were brand new Macbook pros.

____

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 4:25:39 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Just so we are comparing apples-to-apples, so to speak, this is a consumer-level (or gamer) machine and really shouldn't be compared on even footing with a Mac Pro. You should look into the Z series workstations on HP's small-to-medium business site if you want a production-oriented, robust machine."

I don't know how careful we need to be about comparing apples to apples anymore. Sometimes an orange will do just fine.

One of the points I tried to make in a recent thread [link] is that video editors used to need a workstation just to do basic editorial tasks like play broadcast-quality video in real-time.

Modern consumer-grade machines have advanced to the point where they can handle many editorial tasks -- just look at all the editors cutting HD on iMacs. Mr. Kelly's machine certainly doesn't compare with the power, flexibility, or engineering of a Mac Pro or HP Z-series workstation, but I think it does compare with an iMac.

The way that his machine with Premiere Pro can use CUDA on NVIDIA cards also shows the increasing importance of GPU co-processing, and highlights a new way to get big performance increases without big cost increases. We've never had this many options before.

That said, I'd certainly agree with your general advice, which I think boils down to "you get what you pay for."

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+4


Aindreas GallagherRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 10:36:50 pm

yeah - but isn't this just a mad thing?

(mini rant)

we all know that apple operate on their ability to enter markets at moments of critical opportunity - that goes for everything for a decade - ipod, iphone, ipad, all the consumer stuff. And Macbook Air, in the end, maybe more than most. That laptop really appears to be terra-forming the entire laptop supply chain industry.

FCPX feels horrible for sure. Just a lazy scattershot guess at editing with some trendy metadata tagging thrown in.
For my part I will continue to re-iterate the basic flaws in timeline operation. I do not frankly see how anyone can get past the gluey, inaccurate feel of clip behaviour as you reposition in time on even the newest machines. that basic stuff I really think speaks volumes to the death of the professional software brain trust in apple. they didn't spot that basic a fubar for god's sake.

but - asking for towers to be everything they have been, for them to be competitively driven by major manufacturers with economies of scale, has to be whistling in the wind. A three foot tall tower is the equivalent of a really good DJ deck - it is, with every day, vanishing from its originating consumer market relevance. the vinyl is gone. Given the power available in a well specced consumer all in one, the very notion of a mute computing behometh with extra sets of ribs is gone. Or rather it is about to become very niche and accordingly expensive.

Apple are probably not going to produce another tower as we understand it, one would suspect.

It's weird times - HP is going pseudo IBM, Windows is trying to shift to ARM, Windows 8, in the D9 demos, as it flipped between metro and the new windows explorer ribbon madness looked simply.. ludicrous(..and the woman demonstrating seemed incredibly uncomfortable?)
and... OSX now lacks persistent window bars, or a default representation of the hard drive at the desktop.

A victory for Steve Jobs there on the invisible hard drive.

Still - the ground underfoot is amazingly crazy no?

So one might possibly ask if there could, in all this bubbling looniness, be a bespoke, stable software environment purely for the humble craft of editing?
...with an agreed core set of persistent editing principles reliably presented? in software? to the host hardware?
Can I have a Union?

Anyway.
So, there was, say, a time when the practise of editing had a physical machine expression.

So we all get that this took place. We all draw directly from its practitioners. It is at least interesting to think about our basic consensual notions of editing; the stuff we all agree upon in the doing of it, as we all draw from the work of those who have done it before us.
God knows there's a lot more of us via software now - sure if it was all steinbecks - I never would have got a look in.

but the degree to which we are all now insanely swamped in considerations of operating systems, graphics cards, the software itself, the intentions of the software providers, the state of computing itself - its gone a long way weird this hasn't it?

Do we not have any culturally insistent and persistent craft delineations?

Writers don't have this problem. Their keyboards are left alone. What exactly are we supposed to do here?


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 6, 2011 at 11:55:17 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Do we not have any culturally insistent and persistent craft delineations?

Writers don't have this problem. Their keyboards are left alone. What exactly are we supposed to do here?"


If anything, I think the language we use to describe our tools and organizing principles is a touchstone of the craft. A sequence is a sequence is a sequence. A project is something else entirely. Apple is wrong if they think they can redefine the language of an entire professional industry.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

Rafael AmadorRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 12:32:53 am

[Walter Soyka] "That said, I'd certainly agree with your general advice, which I think boils down to "you get what you pay for.""
Probably that's the reason why FCPX is that cheap :-)


[David Lawrence] "If anything, I think the language we use to describe our tools and organizing principles is a touchstone of the craft. A sequence is a sequence is a sequence. A project is something else entirely. Apple is wrong if they think they can redefine the language of an entire professional industry."
That's their big mistake.
I never thought their money could make them that arrogant.
I cant recognise them.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jamie FranklinRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 12:59:05 am

[David Lawrence] "Apple is wrong if they think they can redefine the language of an entire professional industry."


And their apologists for this divorce denigrate those that define their craft by that very language..."afraid of change!!"....it's maddening.

Final Cut 7 really shaked my squirrel cage with it's long legs and amble bosoms, she couldn't run very fast, but I didn't mind, she had so much to offer and allowed me to create my own style...

This new chick is like the bachelor party girl. I can't touch her and she's only giving me blue manjigglies

Where's my wife!


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Aindreas GallagherRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 1:00:41 am

but it's tricky isn't it?

Everyone is using weirdly carefully language - god knows craig seeman is - there is a masking of basic discourse here.

How many times have we heard the various warbles of what the professional is or isn't? or databases, or strategic apple something.

Sure people have received editing awards in the last three years knowing nothing of the wisdom of apple with regards to editing paradigms.

that must have been hell.

they could barely see the wisdom of Apple these editors, could barely see the fundamental truths of editing - truths from a company that could not give two flying shites if editing lived or died.
those blind editors could barely understand the wonders of connected clips, secondary storylines, or any of the other endless, worthless, stupid, lazy god-awful, prat imovie slapped in an editors face, sunday lunch bollocks apple came up with when making FCPX.


FCPX is, I contend, TOTAL AND UTTER gaudy apple, ill informed, POMPOUS HORSE SH*T SOFTWARE.

and that would be the rant.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Herb SevushRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 2:57:43 am

"FCPX is, I contend, TOTAL AND UTTER gaudy apple, ill informed, POMPOUS HORSE SH*T SOFTWARE."

Aindreas please, don't hold back, tell us what you really think.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Glen HurdRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 5:05:28 am

Aindreas has mastered the art of message and style. He can say F-U, and still leave everyone smiling.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 12:40:48 pm

[Glen Hurd] "Aindreas has mastered the art of message and style. He can say F-U, and still leave everyone smiling.
"


It's still just an opinion. One man's horsesh*t tool is another's trick of the trade.

Take DSLRs for example. As far as I'm concerned, they are an ill informed, pompous bastardization of a video camera. Really. Nothing in the past ten years has caused me as an editor so much consistent trouble. Yet they seem to be all the rage. It has redefined an industry, but has no timecode, shotty on board audio and video that is compressed right up to noise. Similar parallels could be made about FCPX. I'd like a DSLR if it had timecode, fir real audio, manageable ergonomics, and a real video codec. Some might like FCPX more if it had missing features that encompass today's NLEs. As far as I'm concerned DSLRs have changed to business forever. No going back. It remains to be seen what will happen with the "Mark II" of FCPX. After all it is just a tool:



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 12:54:05 pm

Yes to all your negatives Jeremy, but the fact remains that in the right hands a 5D can produce pictures you simply can't get with any other camera. Is there anything you can output with FCPX you can't do with any other NLE?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 12:59:19 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Yes to all your negatives Jeremy, but the fact remains that in the right hands a 5D can produce pictures you simply can't get with any other camera"

Ha! What?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 1:21:42 pm

For a cooking show I direct we shoot finished plating shots, very quickly, at the end of each sequence, with all 4 of our Panasonic hdx900 cameras. 2 years ago, when we jumped to do the beauties we replaced one camera with a 5D. The images were amazing, so powerful that even though we had the other angles to play with, I used almost nothing else in the final edit. Same camera operators, same lighting, and the 5D blew everything else away. The problem for the producers was that it was sooooo different, not just depth of field, but in the way it handled light, that it made the rest of the show look like shit. We decided it had to be all one way or the other for the following year. Because it is a multi-cam shoot and because of all the problems you mentioned, plus some others not mentioned, we didn't repeat the experiment. We used a Pany 100F this year on the beauties and the results are nowhere close.

It's not for every use and it needs to be housed in a professional video camera body, but I stand by what I said - I can get shots with the 5D that I can't get, but would like to, with any other camera. (I'll admit I haven't tried a Red or Alexa - I still don't think they would match up - they would be more equivalent to shooting with a Canon 7D) This is not as true with any of the smaller Canon models (7D, 60, 2i). In this, as in many things, size (sensor size) does matter.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 1:54:46 pm

Herb, so you are saying right tool for the right job?

And what appealed most to you about the 5D? The color, short DOF, the contrast, all the aliasing? OK, that last one was a dig. What couldn't you get out of the AF that you could out of the 5D besides audio/video and tc?

You can get all that with other cameras (have you tried DOF adapters?). And I'm sorry, but a red blows the pants off the 5D, but since you haven't tried it, I'll leave that alone. In video, the sensor size certainly matters, and bigger is not always better. This is probably another thread.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 2:13:41 pm

"Herb, so you are saying right tool for the right job?"

No, what I'm saying is that if your going to deal with a lot of problems then a tool better be able to deliver something you can't get any other way. If the final results are worth the pain then you call the problems "idiosyncrasies," if not then the tool is simply a piece of crap.

"And what appealed most to you about the 5D? The color, short DOF, the contrast, all the aliasing? OK, that last one was a dig. What couldn't you get out of the AF that you could out of the 5D besides audio/video and tc?"

Yes to the color, the contrast, the DOF but mostly I just thought of it as the way the 5D handled the light. The AF looked like the other Pany's except with a slightly shallower depth of field. The 5D reminded me of when I was first starting out, working with 16mm film, and I got to edit 35mm for the first time - there was a glow to the image that at first I thought must be some filter combination the DP was using - later I realized it was just the difference higher resolution and smaller grain size brings. In the hands of a skilled DP, someone who could take advantage of those properties, you could get a look that simply couldn't be matched on 16. Something about the way the 5D handled the light reminded me of that. I've been looking for it ever since I switched to video and I never saw it before.

I would be thrilled if Canon, or anyone, would put that sensor in a real video camera body - but for now I will put up with it's "idiosyncrasies" when the right situation comes along.

If I could afford to keep a Red or Alexa around to just pull out a few times a day for special shots, then I would be happy to say good-bye to the Canon.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 2:19:33 pm

A late addendum -

"I realized it was just the difference higher resolution and smaller grain size brings."

And it took even longer for me to learn that larger image (sensor) size brought out different lens properties as well.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 2:59:32 pm

[Herb Sevush] "And it took even longer for me to learn that larger image (sensor) size brought out different lens properties as well."

Yeah, and some of those are imperfections.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 3:31:31 pm

"Yeah, and some of those are imperfections."

Depends on the design and quality of the glass, no?

HD exposed all sorts of imperfections that the lack of resolution of SD kept hidden - is the answer to watch everything on an Iphone?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 3:39:03 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Depends on the design and quality of the glass, no? "

Of course, but I guess I am specifically talking about the high end Canon still glass. Still glass is not made to the specs of film glass. It is why still and film lenses cost what they do and weigh as much as they do. They serve different purposes yet, people use them for other purposes. Still lenses are less exacting, film lenses are more exact, with all kinds of variations in between in the quality of being exact.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 3:49:16 pm

What's stopping a DP from using film lenses on the 5D, isn't that what the PL adapter is for?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 3:55:06 pm

[Herb Sevush] "What's stopping a DP from using film lenses on the 5D, isn't that what the PL adapter is for?"

Nothing but a mechanically modified chassis that voids your warranty, unless that's changed. My guess is that is took a long time to get that mount correct, it wasn't available 2 months after the MkII release, was it?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 2:58:10 pm

[Herb Sevush] "No, what I'm saying is that if your going to deal with a lot of problems then a tool better be able to deliver something you can't get any other way. "

Then i disagree that DSLRs are the only way to get those results you speak of. In my mind, they really aren't that special.

[Herb Sevush] "The AF looked like the other Pany's except with a slightly shallower depth of field."

That's because right out of the box Canon understands how to trick the eye in to believing what you are seeing is a high quality image, when really it's not. You eyes sees contrast, then color, then resolution and that's what Canon has tweaked in that order. The AF100 can be tweaked to match these physical properties. The giant sensor does help with sensitivity, but throws a lot out in the process to get there when used for video.

[Herb Sevush] "I would be thrilled if Canon, or anyone, would put that sensor in a real video camera body - but for now I will put up with it's "idiosyncrasies" when the right situation comes along."

So, it's been long enough. Why haven't they?

[Herb Sevush] "If I could afford to keep a Red or Alexa around to just pull out a few times a day for special shots, then I would be happy to say good-bye to the Canon."

Yeah, one wouldn't use an Alexa or Red for special shots.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Richard CardonnaRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 8, 2011 at 3:17:14 pm

You should try the panasonic af100 (the best of dslr in a vidcam format)it has sdi/hdi conectors great for multicam. This should make an outstanding image

Richard.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 8, 2011 at 4:57:57 pm

I have tried the AF100, it's a real video camera with all the positives you mentioned, however the image is not as good as the 5D, in my opinion.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Glen HurdRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 3:18:00 pm

Herb's right. There were some things that a DSLR could do that a video camera couldn't - at the time they were gaining popularity anyway. Now, video cameras are evolving to take in the best elements the DSLRs had to offer, which is the way it should be. We, the community, discovered how to push and manipulate these little gems into something valuable. We expressed what we loved about them (shallow DOF as a tool, access to a huge range of glass, and small form factor). We expressed what we hated about them (line-skipping, excessive moire, lack of manual controls, lack of audio support, etc.) Then the giants looked at the pressure we built and, after a few years, responded to it.
Enter the AF100 from Panny and the F3 from Sony . . but that's intelligent.
Some organizations would rather be different.

You see, the camera manufacturers get it.
You let the pros play with toys, and see which ones they cling to. That becomes your market research. Then you incorporate those features into more "pro" products - blammo - instant success. Repeat often.
It's cheap, self-financed research.

And it doesn't require you to EOL something in order to force your clients to keep supporting your next product line! Nor do your engineers have to become experts at cinematography.
All they have to do is watch and listen.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 3:34:39 pm

Glen, both you and Herb are proving my point. I believe FCPX is in it's DSLR moment. Timecode, who needs it? Tracks who needs them? FCPX obviously needs a few more firmware updates before the bulk of professionals will finally say, well, it's a tool that I can use (or not).


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 3:43:10 pm

"Glen, both you and Herb are proving my point. I believe FCPX is in it's DSLR moment."

My point was the DSLR's had huge negatives but provided a product I either couldn't get, or couldn't afford to get any other way. What product is FCPX providing that you can't get with PPro?

If the only advantage of FCPX is speed of editing, then it would have to be waaayyyy faster to make up for the negatives, and even then it would only be useful in it's much more limited range of functionality.
And it's not clear that FCPX is faster than PPro at all.

Most editors don't switch NLEs as effortlessly as DPs switch cameras and therefore the usefulness of a niche product that might be faster with limited functionality is much less.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 3:54:23 pm

[Herb Sevush] "My point was the DSLR's had huge negatives but provided a product I either couldn't get, or couldn't afford to get any other way. What product is FCPX providing that you can't get with PPro?"

Right now, as "v1", not a ton of things. Hyper fast organization. Hyper fast effects without retooling my existing hardware too much, a weird but decent color corrector. And as I play with it more, really fast editing. Right there, those are the very basics of an NLE, just like a DSLR is the very basics of what you need from a video camera. If I remember correctly, you don't own FCPX, right?

[Herb Sevush] "Most editors don't switch NLEs as effortlessly as DPs switch cameras and therefore the usefulness of a niche product that might be faster with limited functionality is much less."

True, very true. The camera market is way more fragmented than the NLE software market, and this is a relatively new phenomenon. If we as editors had that many choices that "just worked" would we switch around more?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 4:06:12 pm

"If I remember correctly, you don't own FCPX, right?"

Because I edit primarily multi-cam, FCPX suits me like the proverbial mammary on a pig (I leave you to decide which is which.)

As far as speed goes I can definitely tell you that for my workflow FCPX is slower than my 20 year old EMC2.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 4:17:33 pm

[Herb Sevush] "As far as speed goes I can definitely tell you that for my workflow FCPX is slower than my 20 year old EMC2."

Maybe because it doesn't exist yet for you, but has been announced? You mean to tell me if you fired up your 20 year old machine, you'd be able to ingest a tape/tapeless 6 cam multicam in HD? This is getting pretty silly.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 4:27:19 pm

You got me there Jeremy - I was being hyperbolic (or full of s**t) - EMC2 couldn't actually import anything other than NTSC and it really couldn't handle SD fully, it was strictly an off-line editor. But if you could convert the files I could definitely cut a 6 camera show on it faster than you could on FCPX and that's not exactly a big step forward.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 4:47:49 pm

[Herb Sevush] "But if you could convert the files I could definitely cut a 6 camera show on it faster than you could on FCPX and that's not exactly a big step forward."

Yeah, but FCPX can handle HD and EMC2 can't. FCPX simply does not have multicam availability yet, so it's hard to say how it will react in that regard.

The OS9 Media100i system I used to work could mix audio and do more stacked rt effects than FCP7 ever will be able to. FCP7 is not a fast NLE. It is crazy how fast FCP7 is achieving mythological status.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 5:18:09 pm

"The OS9 Media100i system I used to work could mix audio and do more stacked rt effects than FCP7 ever will be able to. FCP7 is not a fast NLE. It is crazy how fast FCP7 is achieving mythological status."

I have been a harsh critic of FCP's many flaws since I started using it about 7 years ago - no mythologizing here. It was never my favorite NLE, that would have been *edit, it was simply the best option for me currently available. It's greatest strength and it's greatest weakness was it's plasticity - it could be most things for most people, but only if you could waddle thru the confusion off it's design.

"FCPX simply does not have multicam availability yet, so it's hard to say how it will react in that regard."

Every other NLE marketed to professionals has this feature, it is as ubiquitous as audio tracks. The mutli-cam in FCP7 was, along with Avid, the best in the market. You might think that multi-cam is a natural place for FCPX's use of metadata to shine. On the other hand the single viewer nature of FCPX is anathema to multi-cam editing where 2 screens have to be visible at all times.

I am actually quite pissed off by the inappropriateness of the current FCPX for my workflow as it looks like it would be a lot of fun poking under the hood. For now, for me, it's moot.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 5:52:30 pm

[Herb Sevush] "It was never my favorite NLE, that would have been *edit, it was simply the best option for me currently available. "

That was one program I have never had the chance to experince. It must have been good as many many people seemed to have really liked it.

[Herb Sevush] "Every other NLE marketed to professionals has this feature,"

And so will FCPX, unless they are lying. I highly doubt they are flat out lying, from FAQ:

Does Final Cut Pro X support multicam editing?
Not yet, but it will. Multicam editing is an important and popular feature, and we will provide great multicam support in the next major release. Until then, Final Cut Pro X offers some basic support with automatic clip synchronization, which allows you to sync multiple video and audio clips using audio waveforms, creating a Compound Clip that can be used for simple multicam workflows.

[Herb Sevush] "I am actually quite pissed off by the inappropriateness of the current FCPX for my workflow as it looks like it would be a lot of fun poking under the hood. For now, for me, it's moot."

I can understand that.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 4:02:16 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Glen, both you and Herb are proving my point. I believe FCPX is in it's DSLR moment. Timecode, who needs it? Tracks who needs them? FCPX obviously needs a few more firmware updates before the bulk of professionals will finally say, well, it's a tool that I can use (or not)."

Here' the problem with that analogy - DSLR video is basically an engineering hack that turned out to be so compelling, it changed an entire industry. DSLR's are problematic for shooting video because they were never designed to shoot video in the first place.

FCPX on the other hand is designed to be an NLE. Yet Apple has decided to ignore decades of industry standards and even goes as far as trying to redefine the very language of the craft itself. And for all its horsepower, Apple's new NLE can't even perform some of the most basic NLE editorial functions. From a design standpoint, this makes FCPX in its current state a design failure.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2


Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 4:13:26 pm

[David Lawrence] "DSLR's are problematic for shooting video because they were never designed to shoot video in the first place."

Yet, they are ubiquitous. It took a while for people to relearn the language of DSLR shooting, and a veritable cottage industry sprung up around it over the last few years to help support it. Again, this did not happen in two months after the release of the MkII. So, in that regard FCPX is more similar than dissimilar. As far as I am concerned, you can edit video in FCPX, can't you? It's not like it doesn't do what it was designed to do.


[David Lawrence] "FCPX on the other hand is designed to be an NLE. Yet Apple has decided to ignore decades of industry standards and even goes as far as trying to redefine the very language of the craft itself."

Yes, it's bold isn't it? It is different, and things are changing. There are no more bins in real life, shooting ratios are skyrocketing, data describing data is becoming a necessity, not a luxury so maybe it's time to rethink some things? I'm not saying FCPX is right or wrong, but it does make you think. Are tracks really the most efficient way to work?

I've said it before, but I truly think Apple has released the full verbiage of FCPX, yet. The language is still being written. Of course, I could be totally wrong. Oh well.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 4:24:44 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Yes, it's bold isn't it? It is different, and things are changing. There are no more bins in real life, shooting ratios are skyrocketing, data describing data is becoming a necessity, not a luxury so maybe it's time to rethink some things? I'm not saying FCPX is right or wrong, but it does make you think. Are tracks really the most efficient way to work?"

This is where it's complicated for me. Pervasive metadata is absolutely the way of the future.

However, I think tracks -- or more precisely, direct manual spatial positioning of media within the timeline -- could work in conjunction with clip connections and metadata. I wrote about this at some length a couple months ago. I think the absence of tracks unnecessarily removes a very useful organizational tool.

I see this as a huge step forward in one area, but a huge step backwards in another. I fear Apple may have painted themselves into a corner, but as you say, it's certainly possible that the language is still being written.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Glen HurdRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 4:15:45 pm

How can I be proving your point? The DSLR revolution predates the AF100, yet you're disagreement with Herb is based on the fact that the AF100 meets the same needs as DSLR, so who needs DSLRs. Your disagreement with Herb ignores the giant price difference between a 5D and the cheapest Red.
The fact remains that the wide acceptance of the DSLRs, for a variety of very "pro" reasons, caused the birth of the AF100-type product lines - both in video and in the continuing development of DSLR lines. Once they allow DSLRs to record HDMI in 4:2:2 color, the dam is going to break again.
This is the very opposite of FCP X, where a DSLR has been dumped on us, and our video cameras have been EOLed, while we have yet to even find out what we like or dislike about the DSLRs at all.

Apple has done what Panny and Sony and Canon are doing - but exactly backwards. Read what I said before about putting out the "toys" to see what sticks, and growing your main product lines around what we, the users, like.
Apple hasn't done anything remotely like this.

Take a hypothetical.
Imagine FCP 8 was released. It's a lot like FCP 7, but has a 64-bit base, can harness all the cpus, can efficiently harness the gpu, and has a color-correction system similar to an $800 editor called Edius. That's it. Nothing else changed. It'd be a minor upgrade, but I'd find it acceptable. Oh, and don't kill Color and DVDSP.
Now they throw out iMovie Advanced under its real name. After a year they look around and see what people are saying about it. Do they really like the magnetic thingy or not? Are they really able to type faster because of skimming or not? Are the filters really as liberating as advertised or not? Do they find colorsync to be an alternative to broadcast monitoring or not?
Now they start on FCP 9, taking in the info gathered from a year of watching and listening, seeing what's going on in the webosphere and in the broadcastsphere - and FCP 8 could have evolved without breaking.

That's what the camera manufacturers are doing. That's not what Apple did or is doing.
Instead, Apple gave us few options. Stick with your almost dead video camera or buy a DSLR, but we're not offering any more models of your dying video camera. And if you think onboard audio, jamming sync, and a bit-depth capable of pulling hair-detail from a greenscreen is a priority, then you're just too small a niche to be concerned with. Geesh. What do you think we're going to do?

That's the way I see your analogy. No-one is saying FCP X has no future with anyone. We're just saying it's unusable for our everyday needs, and we doubt it will ever catch up - because if it was intended to catch up, it would have been built with a tad more insight. We don't believe Apple is that stupid. We just think Apple has its own agenda.

Sell more point-and-shoots.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 4:40:04 pm

[Glen Hurd] "The DSLR revolution predates the AF100, yet you're disagreement with Herb is based on the fact that the AF100 meets the same needs as DSLR, so who needs DSLRs."

I don't know where you might have extracted this.

My "disagreement" with Herb is that FCPX is not that much different than when DSLRs first came out. It took a while before they became a "standard". I have no idea if this will happen to FCPX or not. Today, it can't be a standard as it's hobbled.

[Glen Hurd] "This is the very opposite of FCP X, where a DSLR has been dumped on us, and our video cameras have been EOLed, while we have yet to even find out what we like or dislike about the DSLRs at all."

This has changed, FCP7 is back on sale. There have been plenty of recent cameras that aren't being built anymore. As I said in another post, if we had more NLE choices that were interchangeable, would we use them more?

[Glen Hurd] "Apple hasn't done anything remotely like this."

What do you think FCPX is? It is a public beta test that is hobbled very purposefully. This is Apple's way. Remember the first iPhone that didn't have any apps? It was webapps only? Do you think when they released that first iPhone that they new there was going to be an App Store within iTunes? Why do you think they did it that way? Why do you think they just didn't release the floodgates of the Apps in iTunes store? They publicly test the waters (and make you pay money for it), make sure the foundation is going to hold and then adjust. This is what I see with FCPX.

[Glen Hurd] "Imagine FCP 8 was released. It's a lot like FCP 7, but has a 64-bit base, can harness all the cpus, can efficiently harness the gpu, and has a color-correction system similar to an $800 editor called Edius. That's it. Nothing else changed. It'd be a minor upgrade, but I'd find it acceptable. Oh, and don't kill Color and DVDSP."

I have explained this before on other threads, I really don't think this was techinncally possible without a complete rewrite. While they were at it, they changed a lot of things around to meet the demand of today and perhaps tomorrow's environment. Maybe they missed, I don't know. It was no longer 15+ year old purchased and patchworked code, it is new code written and designed by Apple.

[Glen Hurd] "Stick with your almost dead video camera or buy a DSLR, but we're not offering any more models of your dying video camera."

This happens all the time.

[Glen Hurd] "No-one is saying FCP X has no future with anyone. We're just saying it's unusable for our everyday needs, and we doubt it will ever catch up - because if it was intended to catch up, it would have been built with a tad more insight. "

Yeah, I've said that I can't use it everyday either. We don't use DSLRs on every shoot, but we do sometimes. I can't agree about your "never catching up" argument unless Apple is completely lying on their public FAQ. Also as I mentioned before, I don't think we can see all of the insight that is in there quite yet as it is a different language. Do you own FCPX? Just curious.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Glen HurdRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 10:44:00 pm

OK, let me try one more time. The more I look at what you've written the more I realize there are 2 areas where I agree with you.

[Jeremy Garchow] "My "disagreement" with Herb is that FCPX is not that much different than when DSLRs first came out. It took a while before they became a "standard"."

I totally agree with that statement. It is a lot like when DSLRs came out - but with one difference. Just because DSLRs impacted the industry through the clever efforts of video afficianados doesn't mean FCP X automatically will.

[Jeremy Garchow] What do you think FCPX is? It is a public beta test that is hobbled very purposefully. This is Apple's way. Remember the first iPhone that didn't have any apps? It was webapps only? Do you think when they released that first iPhone that they new there was going to be an App Store within iTunes? Why do you think they did it that way? Why do you think they just didn't release the floodgates of the Apps in iTunes store? They publicly test the waters (and make you pay money for it), make sure the foundation is going to hold and then adjust. This is what I see with FCPX.

Your comments on the first iPhone and the App store are a reference to them slowly making their way into the cell phone market. They were at square 1. They didn't have an established product line there. So of course they took baby steps working their way into territory nobody thought they could take. Once again, with FCP X Apple is starting out at square 1.

So I do agree with you.

And considering just those 2 points, I wonder what's left to say?


Who goes from owning a market to giving it away overnight, and then gets celebrated for having the insight to regain it?


Especially now in an unpredictable economy, a wealth-base growing almost entirely on gadgets and a virtual marketplace that feeds off those gadgets, and a couple of legal hurricanes brewing with some very tough companies?
Borrowing from the Usual Suspects, "Where's your head, Agent Kujan?" You seriously think Apple's getting back into the editing race again? What are they, gluttons for punishment?

So, anyway, the DSLR analogy was appropriate in the sense that DSLRs represent something new on the market. But being new doesn't mean squat - like the Apple Cube or the Titanic. The analogy basically ends there. Only time will tell if this thing grows up or follows Aperture. Meanwhile, Adobe's looking to double their Premiere software revenue in the next year or so, and Avid is learning the benefits of opening up their hardware list. Edius might learn a lesson or 2 from that as well. I'm really curious about Edius. Did you see the color corrector? 10-Bit? With histograms in each of the control overlays and rotoscoping to boot?

And yes, I do have FCP X sitting on a brand new partition.

But everytime I think about booting into it, I somehow end up in Autodesk Smoke.

You see, it works with my legacy FCP 7 projects.

Exciting times!


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 11:27:10 pm

[Glen Hurd] "Just because DSLRs impacted the industry through the clever efforts of video afficianados doesn't mean FCP X automatically will. "

But of course. Time will tell, and it's already happening with fcpx.

[Glen Hurd] "Who goes from owning a market to giving it away overnight, and then gets celebrated for having the insight to regain it? "

It's hard to regain anything these days as everything moves so fast. You could only hope to redefine. Time will tell.

[Glen Hurd] "You seriously think Apple's getting back into the editing race again? What are they, gluttons for punishment?"

It seems there aren't entirely out of it. If they were out, why rerelease FCP7? Why release fcpx at all? When they are out, they are out. They cut the cord, announce the denouement and move on. They haven't done that yet. Yes, it's a weird release, not very smart, but it's now history.

[Glen Hurd] "I'm really curious about Edius. Did you see the color corrector? 10-Bit? With histograms in each of the control overlays and rotoscoping to boot? "

Sure did. Looked pretty good.

[Glen Hurd] "But everytime I think about booting into it, I somehow end up in Autodesk Smoke.

You see, it works with my legacy FCP 7 projects."


If we could buy 4 seats of Smoke, this is where I would look too, but @$15,000 a seat, we probably won't look that hard.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris HarlanRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 5:07:59 pm

[Glen Hurd] "That's the way I see your analogy. No-one is saying FCP X has no future with anyone. We're just saying it's unusable for our everyday needs, and we doubt it will ever catch up - because if it was intended to catch up, it would have been built with a tad more insight. We don't believe Apple is that stupid. We just think Apple has its own agenda. "

Yup.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Geert van den BergRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 11, 2011 at 7:35:35 pm

I am not Jeremy but there are 2 things you can do with with FCPX, which you can't do with PPro... these points do not really apply in comparison to Avid though (and are not new in comparison to FCP7)... but these are very important points, so I am surprised there are so little comments about it.

1.) rewrap video which has only straight cuts, preserving 1:1 quality.
2.) better render quality (try to to re-render a couple of generations in FCPX and then PPro and compare and you'll be surprised, I was...)

Not saying it is not missing anything, I still can't really use FCPX either, but if they fix the things they say they're going to fix in the FAQ, then I like the direction they're going with this application.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David DobsonRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 11, 2011 at 10:01:02 pm

I've never noticed that problem cause I've never needed to do it. In PPro you can edit the source footage without rewrapping.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Geert van den BergRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 12, 2011 at 9:45:35 pm

[David Dobson] "I've never noticed that problem cause I've never needed to do it. In PPro you can edit the source footage without rewrapping."

It's not about re-wrapping as something that is needed to use certain footage. Ever compared the quality going into the program and the rendered export? And why would it even need to render if the file that will be outputted is the same codec as the input codec and only has straigt cuts? This is how FCP works and this is how Media Composer works. (Offcourse applied FX will always require re-rendering, also in FXP and MC, but even the rendering quality was better, 3 generations in PPro and I couldn't look at the picture again)

It could very well be that the codec I used wasn't optimally supported by Premiere. I love someone to prove me wrong, because I liked working with Premiere. Actually we will probably buy some Production bundles to upgrade Photoshop and to get After Effects.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 12, 2011 at 9:55:33 pm

ProRes is one of the big benefits of FCP, Adobe could do with something similar to export to.

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Dennis RadekeRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 13, 2011 at 11:59:00 am

[Steve Connor] "ProRes is one of the big benefits of FCP, Adobe could do with something similar to export to."

If you have FCP installed on your Mac, Premiere Pro can export to all flavors of ProRes without difficulty.

On the larger philosophical side, I agree that there are workflows where a DI codec would be handy for Adobe to have.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 13, 2011 at 12:05:39 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "[Steve Connor] "ProRes is one of the big benefits of FCP, Adobe could do with something similar to export to."

If you have FCP installed on your Mac, Premiere Pro can export to all flavors of ProRes without difficulty.

On the larger philosophical side, I agree that there are workflows where a DI codec would be handy for Adobe to have."


I hadn't realised you could Export to ProRes from PPro as well.

Cineform might have been a good buy for Adobe though!

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Dennis RadekeRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 13, 2011 at 12:49:58 pm

[Steve Connor] "Cineform might have been a good buy for Adobe though!"

Yeah. I'm not sure what GoPro is going to do with it, but I wish them all possible success and Cineform is an available DI codec for use within Adobe, Apple and Avid products.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Geert van den BergRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 11, 2011 at 7:37:47 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Yes to all your negatives Jeremy, but the fact remains that in the right hands a 5D can produce pictures you simply can't get with any other camera. Is there anything you can output with FCPX you can't do with any other NLE?"

I am not Jeremy but there are 2 things you can do with with FCPX, which you can't do with PPro... these points do not really apply in comparison to Avid though (and are not new in comparison to FCP7)... but these are very important points, so I am surprised there are so little comments about it.

1.) rewrap video which has only straight cuts, preserving 1:1 quality.
2.) better render quality (try to to re-render a couple of generations in FCPX and then PPro and compare and you'll be surprised, I was...)

Not saying it isn't missing anything, I still can't really use FCPX either, but if they fix the things they say they're going to fix in the FAQ, then I like the direction of this application.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 12:55:14 pm

Jeremy, FCPX as video-DSLR is a really interesting analogy! A one-size-fits-all approach that can best be used in a professional setting by talented operators with loads of accessories to mitigate the weaknesses inherent in using the "wrong" tool in the first place?

I'd argue that Canon did a far better job of supporting industry standards out of the box, though. FCPX won't be there until the APIs and third-party tools are out, and that's when FCPX may merit additional consideration. Also, although the Canon "interface" is unusual for a cinematographer, Canon didn't try to change any still photo concepts or language.

And I loved the video. "Decades of experience? Access to millions of dollars of equipment? Actual ideas? None of these things were in the box!"

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 1:11:43 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'd argue that Canon did a far better job of supporting industry standards out of the box, though. "

I wouldn't. It could only do 30.0 for a very long time. It was the 5d MkII and a few firmware updates that made the world take notice, not the MkI. Canon is laughing all the way to the bank. Why would they need to change anything?

[Walter Soyka] "Canon didn't try to change any still photo concepts or language."

Come on now. They certainly didn't include common variables. Hey, how about a waveform? No? Oh, a histogram that only works when I take a still? What about real time audio meters? No?

Exposure reading? Format feedback? A viewfinder? Real time video out while shooting to connect to external hardware? No?

Sorry, but I can't agree that out of the box, it isn't hobbled. Im also sorrry for my double negatives and truncated iPhone ramblings. But I think people tend to forget just how hobbled it is, because they can get a result out of it.

[Walter Soyka] "And I loved the video. "Decades of experience? Access to millions of dollars of equipment? Actual ideas? None of these things were in the box!""

:) Glad you like it. I love this video and aptly sums up a portion of what is going on in the world. "I want my money back, Canon."


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 2:10:21 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Come on now. They certainly didn't include common variables. Hey, how about a waveform? No? Oh, a histogram that only works when I take a still? What about real time audio meters? No? Exposure reading? Format feedback? A viewfinder? Real time video out while shooting to connect to external hardware? No? Sorry, but I can't agree that out of the box, it isn't hobbled. Im also sorrry for my double negatives and truncated iPhone ramblings. But I think people tend to forget just how hobbled it is, because they can get a result out of it."

I was not clear enough. I absolutely agree that it's badly hobbled for video, for all the reasons you describe.

My point was on the stills side -- you know, the thing that DSLRs used to be used for. Canon observed standards. Physical things like the control ring arrangement, shutter release placement, lens mount, the hot shoe, the media. Conceptual things like aperture, exposure, and sensitivity.

Canon DSLRs, like any professional stills cameras, are extensible with accessories because there are standards. Video is a feature glommed on to the camera that surprised everyone (Canon included, I'd think). The only reason the camera is even remotely usable for video is because the camera itself is open to first- and third-party extension.

When FCPX's APIs are released, FCPX will become extensible, too. It will be interesting to watch how the industry responds when you can stack accessories onto FCPX to make it more usable (or perhaps less unusable), just like the 5DmkII. With enough accessories, can you Frankenstein the wrong tool for the job until it becomes the right one? If you can, is it worth it, or are you better off just using the right tool in the first place?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 2:42:42 pm

[Walter Soyka] "My point was on the stills side -- you know, the thing that DSLRs used to be used for. Canon observed standards. Physical things like the control ring arrangement, shutter release placement, lens mount, the hot shoe, the media. Conceptual things like aperture, exposure, and sensitivity."

Got ya. Yeah, it is still a still camera. :)

[Walter Soyka] "The only reason the camera is even remotely usable for video is because the camera itself is open to first- and third-party extension."

Can you explain what you mean here? I see it as a remarkably closed system.

[Walter Soyka] "When FCPX's APIs are released, FCPX will become extensible, too."

Did you see foolcut yet? With the help of AE and PPro, you can get an honest to goodness XML from an FCPX timeline, and this is with no API. Almost all of FCPXs timeline nomenclatures are supported in an Applescript that is in v0.9, and the developer doesn't tout himself as a code writer.

[Walter Soyka] "If you can, is it worth it, or are you better off just using the right tool in the first place?"

No question, in my mind it's the right tool. FCPX is certainly not there yet, although if you need to organize 1000 shots quickly, it is definitely the right tool.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 4:17:36 pm

[Walter Soyka] "The only reason the camera is even remotely usable for video is because the camera itself is open to first- and third-party extension."

[Jeremy Garchow] "Can you explain what you mean here? I see it as a remarkably closed system."

I meant this in a somewhat naive sense -- interchangeable lenses and the tripod mount enable all the rest of the preposterous lens adapters and camera stabilization systems in use.

Outside of the scene files, all the image processing is very closed and limiting.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Did you see foolcut yet? With the help of AE and PPro, you can get an honest to goodness XML from an FCPX timeline, and this is with no API. Almost all of FCPXs timeline nomenclatures are supported in an Applescript that is in v0.9, and the developer doesn't tout himself as a code writer."

No, but that sounds really intriguing!


[Jeremy Garchow] "No question, in my mind it's the right tool. FCPX is certainly not there yet, although if you need to organize 1000 shots quickly, it is definitely the right tool."

I think that still depends on your workflow and feature requirements.

I'm not opposed to all of the concepts that FCPX introduces, but I do wish they had retained some of the good interface ideas from the old timeline.

As some of these features get added, either by third parties or by Apple, it'll be interesting to see this debate shift back away from raw system capabilities and limitations and back to the interface choices Apple has made.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 4:22:58 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I meant this in a somewhat naive sense -- interchangeable lenses and the tripod mount enable all the rest of the preposterous lens adapters and camera stabilization systems in use."

I see. Thanks for that.

[Walter Soyka] "No, but that sounds really intriguing!"

Oh man. Check this out:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/344/3483

works with any QT media, not just Red based media. Here's the money shot:



It seems to work, I tested it yesterday, but haven't really put it through it's paces or anything.

[Walter Soyka] "As some of these features get added, either by third parties or by Apple, it'll be interesting to see this debate shift back away from raw system capabilities and limitations and back to the interface choices Apple has made."

And that will be when the rubber hits the road, as they say.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Rafael AmadorRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 7:22:52 pm

[Walter Soyka] "As some of these features get added, either by third parties or by Apple, it'll be interesting to see this debate shift back away from raw system capabilities and limitations and back to the interface choices Apple has made."
For my self the debate is not on FCP or FCPX limitations, but in the interface and the need to learn a new way to make the same thing.
With FCPX I feel I have to learn a 3D application to make my 2D stuff.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 7:45:50 pm

[Rafael Amador] "For my self the debate is not on FCP or FCPX limitations, but in the interface and the need to learn a new way to make the same thing. "

It's kind of how a felt in my brief exposure/bout with a Quantel Harry.

FCPX is undeniable a different beast than other NLEs. I don't think it'll remain an under-performer though.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 11:35:11 am

yeah, it's mad, I always appear to have *one* more frothing rant in me. ohh welll..


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Scott SheriffRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 8:51:30 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Do we not have any culturally insistent and persistent craft delineations?"

We do, but some just conveniently choose to ignore them, because they want to operate in a 'anything goes' manner. They see standards like proper lighting, using the tripod, clean edits, etc, as restrictive and old fashioned. Although I suspect it is more about lack of knowledge, or not wanting to put the time in to do it right. So now we have untold hours of material put out everyday that looks like home movies, with a bunch of plugins slapped on them.
That is one of the things that always amuses me from the 'mad skills' crowd who rant on about doing great storytelling with any tool, which is that they see editing as an art, not a craft. They want to live in this subjective arty world, free from standards, and criticism.
Sure, if you are a good editor you can cut something interesting machine to machine if you have to. But do you want to use an inferior tool just to prove a point, or show your 'mad skills'? An artist can paint with his fingers, a brush or even throw paint at the canvas. And he can use found materials, paint, or even poop, a canvas or a sidewalk, because no matter what he does, he calls it "art", for which there is no standard to say it's not. The artist doesn't even have to be human. Several zoo animals have sold paintings. A craftsman doesn't work in this type of environment. A craftsman still knows what the proper tool for the job is, even if he finds himself in the position of having to make do with less. A craftsman works to an established, and definable standard, that is easily judged by his peers. A craftsman will always choose the best tool for the job, and is not concerned with being hip, or trendy, or how cool a tool is. His concern is with quality, and the ability to do what he needs to do without making excuses.
So there are those that want to be artists, and those that want to be craftsmen.
And going back to FCS vs X. I find it interesting when anyone criticizes X for lack of standard professional features, and the proponents use the 'it's the man, not the tool' argument to defend X. But if it's the man, not the tool, then why do you even need FCP X so desperately? And if you're an artist why is it so important that your peers like and accept FCP X as your tool of choice? IMO these positions seem to be in opposition to the 'it's the man, not the tool' argument used to support FCP X.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com


"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ---Red Adair

Where were you on 6/21?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 9:23:51 am

Could't agree more

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 3:04:23 pm

Perhaps this is hint of what's to come?

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/07/sonnet-announces-rackmac-mini-xserver-ma...

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 4:00:37 pm

Kinda looks like the MacPro replacement I've been describing. As I've said, like a MacMini only bigger to accommodate 16 lane PCIe GPU or two and that's it. At least someone's been thinking in my direction. My hunch is Apple will do this as it covers a broader range of needs than the MacPro.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 4:30:17 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Kinda looks like the MacPro replacement I've been describing. As I've said, like a MacMini only bigger to accommodate 16 lane PCIe GPU or two and that's it. At least someone's been thinking in my direction. My hunch is Apple will do this as it covers a broader range of needs than the MacPro."

It looks to me like a relatively elegant workaround for the lack of availability of the right hardware in the first place. Sonnet is specifically positioning this as a way to make a MacMini into a metadata controller.

Sticking the word Server after MacMini as Apple has done doens't make it so. There are other considerations for servers outside of even processing speed, RAM and connectivity as we have been discussing in the context of workstations. Redundant power supplies? LOM?

Yes, this may cover a broader range of needs, but again, it will leave some previously-served niches behind, and some users will have to look elsewhere going forward.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 5:32:17 pm

[Walter Soyka] "It looks to me like a relatively elegant workaround for the lack of availability of the right hardware in the first place."

This is where Apple's hardware is going to go though, my prediction. Apparently Sonnet is making it happen now. Apple may not get there for another year. Obviously Sonnet believes they will make some money on this in the mean time.

[Walter Soyka] "Yes, this may cover a broader range of needs, but again, it will leave some previously-served niches behind, and some users will have to look elsewhere going forward."

As would be the case with anything. There's no one size fits all. Apple is not going to be niche specific. I do think the box they make will be capable of major power but it'll all be based on adding external devices through Thunderbolt

This
http://9to5mac.com/2011/09/07/peripherals-aplenty-as-apple-preps-to-ship-it...
and this
http://www.maclife.com/article/howtos/12_possible_uses_thunderbolt_port
Really point where Apple is headed. I have no problem with that direction at all. I'll add what I need . . . and so will any interested facility. The modular approach will meet the needs of a larger base from home/office video person to a facility that needs to centralize storage and data control. Need to use PCIe, their are Thunderbolt to PICe expansion boxes. The cost of the base unit will be lower.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 9:07:43 pm

...and another glimpse of what might happen. http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/07/magma-introduces-thunderbolt-pcie-expan...

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: I guess it's So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
by on Sep 7, 2011 at 9:50:13 pm

Sonnet has one as well.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook


FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]