Robert I'll be glad to read your findings. I love the idea of P2 and AVC-Intra product and I hope that Pansonic continues to bring these down the line to more and more product.

Chuck - I really think Apple is in it to stay. They certainly aren't afraid of Adobe. After all Adobe abandoned the platform and then came back. What does that tell you?

Final Cut Studios is a difference maker
Before I dig myself into a hole, thanks for debating this. Its easy to talk about which filters do what and how do I configure this or that. But I don't think there's nearly enough debate about issues that could effect our business or profitability.

Harrison that can be taken a lot of ways. Adobe left because Apple was not enough of their total revenue to warrant spending the R&D dollars to meet Apples demand that it be an NLE that supported quicktime. Also, Adobe runs on both platforms whereas FCP only runs on a Mac, which do you think has the greater potential for growth?

Maybe Adobe should buy FCP???

I like seeing Adobe back with Premiere quite honestly. I think Apple learned a valuable lesson. You must help 3rd party developers as much as possible but becareful on relying too much on them. Microsoft never allows themselves to rely on other sources outside of their company for the big stuff. That philosphy has allowed them to grow the whole pie so that even "bit" pieces are enough for companies to thrive in certain areas.

Apple will not sell Final Cut Pro. In fact I see a goundswell of activity. Shake is being replaced hopefully next year with a new product. Logic Pro is being heavily modifed. Apple now has color grading and SAN based media management.

These are not the actions of a company looking to exit the market. The pro app media divisions make Apple money directly and indirectly with Xserve and Mac Pro sales.

I don't care how big the iPod/iPhone gets Apple is going to be delivering tools that keep it in the spotlight.

Hell I don't think they should stop. I want them to make a product that combines Illustrator vector features and Photoshop like tools into one app and make it video enabled.

Apple's thing now seems to be "non-destructive" where applicable. Soundtrack Pro's effects are and Aperture applies non-destructive edits on RAW photos. Apple should attempt to extend this as far as possible.

There's too much work to be done. Steve Jobs is a perfectionist. I'm sure he's having too much fun right now.

The whole thing about Apple dropping "Computer" from the name is really pointless. The fact is, the Iphone is a mini computer, the AppleTV is a mini computer, and The PRO APPS are a huge source of revenue for Apple.

The new Final Cut Studio is the biggest release the company has ever done for their editing line. They finally attacked and surpassed even what a $60,000 Avid Symphony Nitris can do. Apple is not slacking off at all.

The reason we did not see Blu-Ray/HD DVD yet is likely due to a few things.
- New Mac's are on the way that have internal players
- These players will likely require Leopard

While I can see why many are concerned about specific support of certain codecs/formats in FCP 6, the real message Apple is sending is - use Prores for all things post* (*I qualify that with ALMOST everything post). It is designed to convert any acquisition format into an optimized codec that will give you the smoothest workflow in FCS.

In my mind, this could resolve a lot of issues for those dealing with multiple source types and expensive cpu overhead on native editing like HDV.

-gl

I asked this question earlier, but nobody responded. Do you think the new FCP will be compatible with my Macbook (2ghz core duo, 1 gig ram)? I use FCP 5 and it works fine, and I won't be using motion, so I don't see why the inegrated graphics card should be much of a problem.

I am interested, however in Color, which would be great if it could run on my machine. The website doesn't list the Macbook as being compatible, but I doubt Apple would isolate such a large chunk of its consumers, even if the macbook is branded as being non professional.

I asked this question earlier, but nobody responded. Do you think the new FCP will be compatible with my Macbook (2ghz core duo, 1 gig ram)? I use FCP 5 and it works fine, and I won't be using motion, so I don't see why the inegrated graphics card should be much of a problem.

I am interested, however in Color, which would be great if it could run on my machine. The website doesn't list the Macbook as being compatible, but I doubt Apple would isolate such a large chunk of its consumers, even if the macbook is branded as being non professional.

I am pretty sure it will not work. FCP 6 now offers FXplug effects that use GPU for rendering. So, while you may get it installed, it won't perform very well. I am actually wondering how well it will run on my 1st gen MBP.

-gl

>I am interested, however in Color, which would be great if it could run on >my machine. The website doesn't list the Macbook as being compatible, >but I doubt Apple would isolate such a large chunk of its consumers, even >if the macbook is branded as being non professional.[/QUOTE]

I almost hate to write this but here goes...

You buy the BEST hardware you can find TODAY and expect that...

In about six months expect it to be functionally behind the industry.
In about a year, expect it to be obsolete tho still functionally viable.
In about two years, expect to be past it's lifespan and limiting your capability to do things with ever increasing pressure to dump it for an upgrade.

You buy ANYTHING less than near the top of the line, halve or quarter those time predictions.

This is not about your laptop for watching DVD's or writing letters - it's about computer hardware you're using to make your living doing digitlal media work.

The reality is that software writers push their products and rev them to add functionality constantly. The new functionality is almost always accompanied by complexity that requires more hardware capability.

So my bet is that your (and my) MacBooks will be essentially worthless for running a modern NLE within a year or so after purchase. They might technically do it, but it's gonna be an ugly productivity experience.

My Quad G5 desktop rig bought right at introduction six months ago is now bested by the 8 core machines. Because it's a workhorse it might give me another year - perhaps a little more. I'm thankful it will even run COLOR - I've been through some software upgrades that didn't even allow you to RUN it on previous generation hardware (Motion?) FORCING an upgrade if you wanted to play.

That's just the way hardware is today.

If your business model can't support - in net/net bottom line profit - totally paying off any new hardware in a few jobs or at worst a few months - you're NEVER going to keep up with the pace of technology these days.

And worse this means paying for it with "after expenses/after taxes/after overhead" dollars AND after you take enough money home to pay your bills and LIVE.

It's an ugly fact. But I think it's a fact none the less.

It's weird thinking of busting your butt to afford a $10k tricked out computer and in a couple of years, having it worth a tenth of that. But if recent history teaches us anything, it teaches us that the downward pressure on tech value is MONSTEROUS.

For what it's worth.

While I can see why many are concerned about specific support of certain codecs/formats in FCP 6, the real message Apple is sending is - use Prores for all things post


agreed George, but how does this message fit in with the whole tapeless workflow paradigm, which promises and enables faster than realtime or even instant access to the media?

the ProRes message above requires losing time due to a need to transcode to this intermediate format, either due to realtime capture via one of the new IO HD boxes or simlar, or due to the time needed to recompress the already imported footage.

on the FCP/Apple debate I have to agree to disagree with Chuck. I see the point being made about successful companies who have, to some extent, unexpextedly exited the market place, but I don't see that Apple is in the same position at all. their software/hardware business model differs significantly from almost every company cited. thier Pro Apps software generates significant hardware sales, and thier aggressive pricing generates significant software sales to not only to pro's looking for the most cost effective toolset, but also to a market segment otherwise unpenatrated, that being consumers ot hobbyists who like to play with big boys toys ... hardly the same as the Accom's, Lightworks, SGI's etc.

agreed George, but how does this message fit in with the whole tapeless workflow paradigm, which promises and enables faster than realtime or even instant access to the media?

the ProRes message above requires losing time due to a need to transcode to this intermediate format, either due to realtime capture via one of the new IO HD boxes or simlar, or due to the time needed to recompress the already imported footage.

On the PC Cineform, which is equivalent to ProRes captures and encodes in real time. They also offer some devices that offer instant access to media.

I think for the most part the quality of dedicated post production codecs out weights the instantaneous access to data. All of the codecs designed by camera manufacturers are good but they are limited to the bandwidth/density of the media. Since computers don't have the same constraint the image quality can be significantly better.

I have not seen the ProRes codec, but both the Sheer Video and Cineform codecs, although very different, are very impressive. In all of the comparisons I have seen they have been compared to uncompressed HD and the images are almost indistinguishable, they are both significantly better than DVCProHD.

Since I'm kind of retired I don't care as much about the widgets anymore, my focus has changed and I'm a lot more interested in profitability, "Show me the money!" I think this was a very important step for FCP, having the ability to choose a codec designed specifically for post production will enable the user to manage the look of the content and therefore differentiate themselves [and if their smart] be able to charge more for higher quality. Obviously the best quality is uncompressed, but an almost equally important ingredient to profitability is efficiency and not only do these codecs help develop a look but they significantly help efficiency.

In a sense you'll be able to balance the data rates with the level of quality equired for a given budget. All this before we even begin discussin how the digital intermediate plays a role in this equation.

As far as agreeing to disagree, I give up- I agree with everyone else...

agreed George, but how does this message fit in with the whole tapeless workflow paradigm, which promises and enables faster than realtime or even instant access to the media?

the ProRes message above requires losing time due to a need to transcode to this intermediate format, either due to realtime capture via one of the new IO HD boxes or simlar, or due to the time needed to recompress the already imported footage.

It is a RT transcode with existing footage (software-based) and an instantaneous conversion with a HD-SDI/HDMI card (h/w based). It couldn't be faster. You will also be able to use it with the gamut of BMD and AJA products.

-gl

It is a RT transcode with existing footage (software-based) and an instantaneous conversion with a HD-SDI/HDMI card (h/w based). It couldn't be faster. You will also be able to use it with the gamut of BMD and AJA products.

George, I appreciate that of course, I'm guessing my point is being lost. What I'm trying to argue, as it were, is that this still doesn't address the fact that we are taking a faster than realtime workflow and reducing it to realtime or slower.

I'm perfectly happy to admit that I'm looking at things from my own "niche specific" world view, and not one typical of general post production workflows. Nonetheless it is still a valid view (or so I like to think!)

To better explain, I'm considering things specifically from an ENG and EFP perspective. Logging and importing directly from the camera media. HD-SDI/HDMI etc never enters the equation, as that would only serve to restrict the workflow to good old-fashioned realtime ingest, losing the obvious benefit of the faster than realtime tapeless workflow, as does having to transcode to an intermediate codec after the fact.

Apple are actively courting major networks, promoting their hardware and software as ideal for digital news production ... and not without results. FCP is usd for field production by many of the major global news channels including the likes of CNN, SkyNews and Aljazeera.

So I guess the message "use Prores for all things post" as valid as it may be for a post house workflow, is not really one I personally want to hear from Apple ... I've got my ears peeled back for a "Quicktime natively supports all modern professional camera codec's and wrappers" message.

Here's hoping. Thanks for the debate.

George, I appreciate that of course, I'm guessing my point is being lost. What I'm trying to argue, as it were, is that this still doesn't address the fact that we are taking a faster than realtime workflow and reducing it to realtime or slower.

I'm perfectly happy to admit that I'm looking at things from my own "niche specific" world view, and not one typical of general post production workflows. Nonetheless it is still a valid view (or so I like to think!)

To better explain, I'm considering things specifically from an ENG and EFP perspective. Logging and importing directly from the camera media. HD-SDI/HDMI etc never enters the equation, as that would only serve to restrict the workflow to good old-fashioned realtime ingest, losing the obvious benefit of the faster than realtime tapeless workflow, as does having to transcode to an intermediate codec after the fact.

Apple are actively courting major networks, promoting their hardware and software as ideal for digital news production ... and not without results. FCP is usd for field production by many of the major global news channels including the likes of CNN, SkyNews and Aljazeera.

So I guess the message "use Prores for all things post" as valid as it may be for a post house workflow, is not really one I personally want to hear from Apple ... I've got my ears peeled back for a "Quicktime natively supports all modern professional camera codec's and wrappers" message.

Here's hoping. Thanks for the debate.
That works in an standard definition world, but as the bar is raised to HD and beyond and the quality of the display devices improves, the camera codecs are not good enough. There's no reason to constrain the quality in post production to the bandwidth and density of video tape or what you can transfer over FW.

What's probably going to happen is the migration of these post production codecs to cameras that are tapeless. The challenge here is that codecs like ProRes and Cineform require quite a bit of processing power to encode in RT and even with the Sheer Video codec which doesn't require as much CPU power, its bandwidth exceeds the pipes coming out of the cameras. But all of that is changing quickly.

That works in an standard definition world, but as the bar is raised to HD and beyond and the quality of the display devices improves, the camera codecs are not good enough. There's no reason to constrain the quality in post production to the bandwidth and density of video tape or what you can transfer over FW.

Clearly here we're are talking about "good enough" in the post-production sense, as I think we all agree that the quality of ones footage can never be better than the camera-native original.

For what it's worth, I work in a 100% end to end HD environment, shooting, editing and delivering in 1920x1080 HD. Regardless of that working resolution, it is a tapeless ENG/EFP environment, and recompressing to ProRes, or any other intermediate codec for that matter, negates the primary benefit of the faster than realtime tapeless workflow.

I think this is the sticking point. Relatively speaking, not many are yet used to or have much experience of a truly "faster than" realtime workflow. This is still bleeding edge stuff, and to some extent it seems the bleeding is due to the nature of the camera native codecs!

What's probably going to happen is the migration of these post production codecs to cameras that are tapeless

I don't know that we'll see it in camera for a while yet, but perhaps so ... in the interim I'd expect to see these codecs being licensed to and incorporated within the many HDD field recorder companies out there.

It all depends on how you define better. A lot of footage, if not most, looks better after color correction, effects compositing, and so on. The problem is that by using the camera native codec there isn't enough headroom and after stepping on the image in post its difficult to get even the same level of quality coming out as that went in.

Where speed is important, like ENG news gathering for example, sure the camera native codecs are "good-enough." But in long form production, documentaries or commercials for example it might not be.

If everyone in my neighborhood was using camera native codecs and I was able to compete without changing my workflow then they're good enough. But if a company down the street starts using an intermediate codec and produces better quality images, then I'm at a competitive disadvantage. Thats' where the idea of an intermediate codec will take off, it at least gives us a choice we can stay with the camera natie codec or we can "re-wire it, arr, arr, arr, arrrr."

Of coarse if you have the budget and the bandwidth for uncompressed then it doesn't get much better than that.

Luis, I'm like you... wondering just how well it would work on my dual G5 though. Sooner or later I'll want to upgrade to an intel machine anyway, and software like this really shows off the new hardware.

Yep, i know. But i can't upgrade to Intel yet, so, i'll be a bit disappointed if i can't run Color on my machine, and all because we don't have enough GPU upgrade options. In my country the X800 XT costs 550 €, and i won't pay that kind of money for an obsolete graphic card.
If i can't use FCS2 in my machine I'm thinking about going PC world and use Premiere CS3. But it won't be an easy decision.

Thanks Chuck (and all)
Your perspective and experience are much appreciated

Cheers
Andy