For those which haven't heard:
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/

Let the discussion begin!

Anyone find any good details on this codec. I was thinking of using the SheerVideo codec (its on sale now, hmmm), but this appears to server basically the same need. Trying to go from HDV to a codec that will maintain quality (something uncompressed), smaller sizes will rock. Hope it encodes quick and edits fast.

Anyone find any good details on this codec. I was thinking of using the SheerVideo codec (its on sale now, hmmm), but this appears to server basically the same need. Trying to go from HDV to a codec that will maintain quality (something uncompressed), smaller sizes will rock. Hope it encodes quick and edits fast.
This is long overdue. I'm not sure how well it will compare to the Sheer Video codec. The Sheer Video codec is lossless and I imagine this codec is lossy.

However, Apple obviously has an unfair competitive advantage over other third party codec developers. How well the new ProRess codec works will be determined in large part in how well they integrated it. Can you use the log and capture window and have the same functionality you do capturing SD with HDV while converting to the new ProRess codec during capture?

This is probably the most significant part of the upgrade.

ProRes, according to the video on the Apple site, is two levels:

-145mbs (18 megabytes per second)

-220mbs (27 megabytes per second)

HDCAM is about 145mbs second as well, so even if ProRes is an old-school DCT based codec (like DVCPRO HD, or HDCAM), it should still look pretty good.

If it's anything of newer tech (wavelet, like Cineform or REDCode), I'm sure it'll be absolutely awesome.

ProRes, according to the video on the Apple site, is two levels:

-145mbs (18 megabytes per second)

-220mbs (27 megabytes per second)

HDCAM is about 145mbs second as well, so even if ProRes is an old-school DCT based codec (like DVCPRO HD, or HDCAM), it should still look pretty good.

If it's anything of newer tech (wavelet, like Cineform or REDCode), I'm sure it'll be absolutely awesome.

I'm guessing that because they claim that this is a 4:2:2 codec that the difference in data rate is 8 bit and 10 bit. Also to get to those data rates at 1920x1080 they must be using newer VBR compression.

I will check this out at NAB on Tuesday. It appears that this upgrade has more to do with usability than new bells and whistles which IMHO is what Apple needed to do. If it works as advertised this could be cool!

I'm guessing that because they claim that this is a 4:2:2 codec that the difference in data rate is 8 bit and 10 bit.

No, there's two flavors of the same codec. regular and "HQ" HQ is the 220.


Also to get to those data rates at 1920x1080 they must be using newer VBR compression.

Well, they do mention ProRes is VBR, but I wouldn't say there's a causeality there. I mean, you can compress a 1920x1080 raster to any data rate you please. Whether it looks good to meet your goal is up to you.

In simplest terms, this is DNxHD for FCP, except hopefully leveraging 2 years of codec advances.

The AJA HD/IO video touts doing the new codec in hardware, but FCPs history implies you'll be able to digitize to it in real-time without the HD/IO if your hardware is manly enough for it. The only codecs they've locked out for digitizing in the past has been the MPEG2 based codecs, for obvious horsepower reasons. Photo-JPEG, DVCPRO HD and Motion JPEG have always been up for grabs when digitizing.

Yeah, but I have to believe that in order to get the quality they need to compete with Canopus and DNxHD this must be wavelet or something newer than DCT.

I didn't do the math but the difference in data rate is probably 4:2:2 8bit is regular and 4:2:2 10bit is HQ.

Also, I agree [and hope] that although Aja has the ProRes in hardware this should be a software only solution. This is a lot more interesting if I can capture HDV directly via FW into the ProRes Codec and then capture HD-SDI into the same codec. Sure if the hardware enables me to up and down convert from this codec to anything else in realtime that would be great.

But I want to be able convert different formats into the same codec for editing. Apples foray into the digital intermediate...

I didn't do the math but the difference in data rate is probably 4:2:2 8bit is regular and 4:2:2 10bit is HQ.

The difference is too great. It does not explain such a great divide between the two. The math when you do this with SD uncompressed (8bit vs 10bit) is a 20% increase, not ~55% as it is here.

Besides, the narration on the video explaining ProRes does not characterize it like this either. It basically says you have both regular and HQ to choose from, each being 8bit or 10bit, your choice.

Also, I agree [and hope] that although Aja has the ProRes in hardware this should be a software only solution. This is a lot more interesting if I can capture HDV directly via FW into the ProRes Codec and then capture HD-SDI into the same codec.

At $3495, it better be able to do this. I'm sure it will. While the I/O HD is awful neat, you can get 75% of it's functionality with an LHe for $1500.

I will definitely be ordering FCS2, next month!
I'm super excited about having multiple formats and frame rates in the same time line.

I really hope it can offer me a solution to get slow-mo from my Canon XH A1 (referring to the old "take my 60i and convert it to 60p and then slow it to 24fps" issue)

So does ProRes appear to be something that could be counted on for multiple processes and survive a few generations being worked on. I believe I read they showed a uncompressed vs prores 10th generation comparison and they looked indistinguishable. I guess we'll find out when it ships.

The new retiming features really caught my eye too. Anyone catch if this is somthing that is only in motion (especially the optical flow / ramping bit) or is it in FCP too. I suppose with the 'great integration' being touted it may not matter too much. Also, assuming this is tech they're taking from shake, anyone know how it compares to Twixtor, quality and speed of rendering wise?

So does ProRes appear to be something that could be counted on for multiple processes and survive a few generations being worked on. I believe I read they showed a uncompressed vs prores 10th generation comparison and they looked indistinguishable. I guess we'll find out when it ships.

There is lossless compression, the Sheer Video codec for example which remains the same no matter how many generations you go and lossy, like the Cineform codec, which are wavelet compressed codecs. Demonstrating a sequence that has gone through 10 generations using wavelet compression is a bit of a tradeshow gimmick because any loss in image quality will happen after the first compression. So if its compressed 10 times it doesn't really matter.

If your footage originates with uncompressed HD and you want to deliver on 35mm film then lossless is the way to go. The Sheer Video codec would give you a compression of about 3 to 1 over uncompressed. If you are delivering in HD for any compressed deliverable (HDDVD for example) then Cineform or ProRes is probably a good choice. All of these codecs provide excellent image quality with a lower data rate compared to uncompressed and are much better quality than either DVCProHD and HDV [although in this case the data rates would actually increase]

Also, an important difference is that lossless codecs have a higher data rate then lossy codecs but require very little processor power. Lossy codecs have a lower data rate but place a much higher demand on the processor while encoding. So how well either of these codecs works for you depends on what the footage originated on, what the deliverable will be and how your system is configured. The important point here is that you now have a choice that goes way beyond deciding which easy setup to use.

The new retiming features really caught my eye too. Anyone catch if this is somthing that is only in motion (especially the optical flow / ramping bit) or is it in FCP too. I suppose with the 'great integration' being touted it may not matter too much. Also, assuming this is tech they're taking from shake, anyone know how it compares to Twixtor, quality and speed of rendering wise?
Both Twixtor and Motion3 are using similar optical flow technology for arriving at the same results. Assuming that Apple engineers are good at math they should be about the same. So if all your doing a lot of retiming a ton of clips Twixtor might still be the right answer but if your retiming a clip as part of a design in Motion3, well you see the benefit...

Does anyone know if FCS2 will support MT2 files natively (from JVC DR-HD100)

Does anyone know if FCS2 will support MT2 files natively (from JVC DR-HD100)

First off, you can download the 2.2 update and get the .m2t files to record directly into HDV 24 .MOV which import directly into FCP.

Having said that, the answer is likely no. Apple mentioned an Open Timeline. For Apple that means you will still need everything in a .MOV wrapper. From this point though, you no longer need to render when dropping clips of different Frame Rates, Codecs, and Resolutions in the same timeline.

I think it looks like a nice little update. A few things I still hope to see included once I get my hands on it though.

I'm on the line to buy it!!!
I just don't get if Color will work in my computer (G5 with 9600XT). In the FCS requirements they mention that card, but when it comes to Color alone they specify a better one. Hope it will work.

First off, you can download the 2.2 update and get the .m2t files to record directly into HDV 24 .MOV which import directly into FCP.

Having said that, the answer is likely no. Apple mentioned an Open Timeline. For Apple that means you will still need everything in a .MOV wrapper. From this point though, you no longer need to render when dropping clips of different Frame Rates, Codecs, and Resolutions in the same timeline.

yea we already do that... just wanting native M2t support

I'd like native m2t support as well. I've got a ton of HDV footage I've captured from back in my PC days, and I can't use any of it without doing a bunch of transcoding. I'd also like mp3 support, but it's not that important.
But I'm psyched about this new FCS release! I can't wait!

I just watched part of Apple's demo of Color at NAB.... wow, it was really impressive. They were re-lighting and changing the colors in music video clips with a few mouse clicks and it was beautiful. From what I saw, it looked like it would be worth the price of admission just for this one component. Upgrading to FCS 2 from earlier versions of FCP is quite at deal at $699.

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.

I just watched part of Apple's demo of Color at NAB.... wow, it was really impressive. They were re-lighting and changing the colors in music video clips with a few mouse clicks and it was beautiful. From what I saw, it looked like it would be worth the price of admission just for this one component. Upgrading to FCS 2 from earlier versions of FCP is quite at deal at $699.

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.

I think your G5 should work fine. I'd look to upgrade the GPU to the fastest you can find. That's where a lot of the boost in Motion 3 is going to come from. I can't believe they tossed in Colors. This bundle of Apps is truly amazing. I though Apple were supposed to be money grubbers. Guess they have a soft side for software.

Will you be able to upgrade to FCS2 if you have the academic version of FCS1? I have to admit I've watched the video's Apple posted about this bundle, its incredible. I might not jump on it just yet, mainly becuase I dont shoot in HD yet, but it will be tempting to grab when I have the money. Theres other equipment I need to get, but Motion 3 and Color look so amazing I might have to just grab it. We will see

Nope, there is no upgrade path for academic versions.

http://store.apple.com/AppleStore/WebObjects/BizCustom?qprm=78313&productLearnMore=MA886Z/A

The upgrade version requires a valid serial number from a commercial version of Final Cut Studio, Production Suite, or Final Cut Pro 1, 2, 3, or 4. Academic and not-for-resale versions are not eligible for this upgrade.

But I think you're still getting a whole lot of software for $1,299.

Nope, there is no upgrade path for academic versions.

http://store.apple.com/AppleStore/WebObjects/BizCustom?qprm=78313&productLearnMore=MA886Z/A



But I think you're still getting a whole lot of software for $1,299.

Agreed, $1300 is a great deal for 5 applications. In theory you'll make it back in two jobs, but thats a theory.

However, to buy the academic version should only be around $700 (like it was before). So for about the same price as an upgrade, you can get the full academic version again.

Of course, that's given that you still qualify and that they keep the same pricing structure (I can't get to the apple store site to check from where i'm at right now).

Education pricing still appears to be $699.

Bummer that Color will not work on my brand new Core 2 Duo iMac (20inch)

Education pricing still appears to be $699.

Bummer that Color will not work on my brand new Core 2 Duo iMac (20inch)

What's the specific spec that prevents Color from running on the 20" iMac?

What's the specific spec that prevents Color from running on the 20" iMac?

I think this might be a typo on Apple's Color-specific requirements: although it says 24" iMac; under the graphics cards supported they do list the ATI X1600 (20" iMac card). This suggests the 20" iMac should in fact work.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/color/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html

(In any case, I wouldn't be worried too much about this. In the past, people have easily modified the installer to circumvent such requirements.... )

Best,
Dino

Thanks for the reply, Dino. I'm contemplating a MacBook Pro purchase but I don't want to miss out using "color". That's why I was wondering what spec requirement might be the killer.

Thanks

The specifications for Color state that you need the graphics card in the MacBook Pro 17" computer. However, my 15" MacBook Pro has the very same graphics card as the 17" (ATI Mobility X1600). If I purchase a 23" external monitor with 1050 lines of resolution, will my MacBook Pro 15" work with Color?

Thanks much.

Stephen

On the subject of spec requirements, I've been wanting to know if Final Cut Studio 2 will run fine on an Intel iMac.

I've read that Final Cut Pro 6 does not support intergrated graphic cards, so is that gonna be a problem? What about the previous version of Final Cut Studio? Will it run smooth on the Intel iMac?

I'm also curious- I have a black macbook that i purchased in June. At the time it had the same specs as the 15 inch macbook pro with the exception of the graphics card (2 ghz intel core duo, with 1 gig of ram). Thinking I wouldn't be using motion, I decided to go with the Macbook. Now I'm upset since on the website it says even FCP 6 requires a stand alone graphics card. Also, Color looks pretty amazing, so my question is do you think the new suite will work (other than Motion)? And what about After Effects CS3, since I'm interested in also purchasing that? Thanks

Before I share I should point out that ever since I migrated my company into pro film & video we've been using FCP exclusively with exception to exporting files to post houses for film-outs or CGI. And for the most part using FCP has been a fairly good experience.

However, the past 3 years especially has found Apple playing catch-up with the exponentially changing arena of new technology in both video camera formats (HDV/P2-MXF etc) and output options (HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, Flash etc).

As most of you probably know, SP4 can author HD-DVD but even today there are no mac-compatible HD-DVD burners, requiring sending the project to a replicator who have minimum copies starting at 5000 units. Not exactly a cost-effective or easy way to do a test burn prior to exporting the DLT. Blu-Ray support has been conspicuously missing from SP4.

The two major additions to FCP is "Color" and the Pro-Res, while both are nice add-ons Apple has failed to bring FCP up to the same level as the competition.

In FCP 6, P2-MXF is still not native to the timeline requiring the transcoding process into QT's either before or during import (something HDLog and P2 Log Pro does faster and better); this was the most suprising and disappointing news since almost all the "rumor" sources had fairly reliable information suggesting MXF would become native to the timeline. HDV rendering support has not improved; Soundtrack has not been given any updates to address lingering sound issues and as mentioned before, the fact that Blu-Ray is still missing and that there is no HD-DVD burner for the Mac on the horizon still leaves DVDSP4 crippled with creating HD-spec content.

From all I've seen here so far at NAB I can't help but be highly disappointed in the fact that Steve Jobs has redirected so much of the attention and resources away from both the OS and pro apps development and instead into the goofy iPhone project that I feel a paradigm shift has occured for Final Cut.

I'm not about to leave the Apple platform but for me Premiere CS3 is getting a serious look-over as is Avid Composer. More later as I continue the research.

SP4 can author HD-DVD but even today there are no mac-compatible HD-DVD burnersyes, good points, but you didn't mention that if you want to do trial burns, SP4 will burn HD-DVDs to standard 4.7G disks (you can't play them of course)

...the fact that Blu-Ray is still missing and that there is no HD-DVD burner for the Mac on the horizon still leaves DVDSP4 crippled with creating HD-spec content.

From all I've seen here so far at NAB I can't help but be highly disappointed in the fact that Steve Jobs has redirected so much of the attention and resources away from both the OS and pro apps development and instead into the goofy iPhone project that I feel a paradigm shift has occured for Final Cut.


I completely agree. The lack of integration of either Bluray or HDDVD (or both) is embarassing and tragic, especially considering Apple used to be at the front of integrating new hardware (CD-ROM at the time etc).
I'm sincerely hoping that this will come with Leopard; particularly since HDDVD and Bluray depend on strong OS integration (HDCP crap).
Of course, there's already Bluray and HDDVD drives available and people have put them into firewire and USB enclosure (and use them for backups using Toast8), but that's nowhere near what one needs in order to prepare video discs....

The whole iPhone thing seems just to be what shareholders expect. Unfortunately, it's iPods etc that seem to drive Apple's stock value (and not FCP).

Dino

I'm also curious- I have a black macbook that i purchased in June. At the time it had the same specs as the 15 inch macbook pro with the exception of the graphics card (2 ghz intel core duo, with 1 gig of ram). Thinking I wouldn't be using motion, I decided to go with the Macbook. Now I'm upset since on the website it says even FCP 6 requires a stand alone graphics card. Also, Color looks pretty amazing, so my question is do you think the new suite will work (other than Motion)? And what about After Effects CS3, since I'm interested in also purchasing that? Thanks

I"m surprised they didnt warn you of this at the apple store [if you went there before you purchased]. I was going to buy a black macbook, and when they asked me what I do they highly suggested i dish out the extra money for the pro version. Apple always tries to make you buy the more expensive stuff, but they tend not to lie about the capabilities of their machines.

I completely agree. The lack of integration of either Bluray or HDDVD (or both) is embarassing and tragic, especially considering Apple used to be at the front of integrating new hardware (CD-ROM at the time etc).
I'm sincerely hoping that this will come with Leopard; particularly since HDDVD and Bluray depend on strong OS integration (HDCP crap).
Of course, there's already Bluray and HDDVD drives available and people have put them into firewire and USB enclosure (and use them for backups using Toast8), but that's nowhere near what one needs in order to prepare video discs....

The whole iPhone thing seems just to be what shareholders expect. Unfortunately, it's iPods etc that seem to drive Apple's stock value (and not FCP).

Dino
This is getting a little off topic but as a business owner debate about the futer of Apple/FCP could be a good thing.

Your right, the CEO of Apple's only responsibility is to manage shareholder value and as much as we may depend on continued development of FCP, that continued development is antithetical to Apple success.

Which means the more successful the iPod, iPhone and iTV the less likely Apple is to continue on with FCP. Do you think its a coincidence that Apple changed its name from Apple Computers to Apple Inc? Apple is now a consumer electronics company.

We go to NAB and witness a significant presence at the Apple booth where all of us Apple faithful pine for a bit more functionality, a bit more competitive advantage over our Avid brethren. Which I might add didn't exactly light the room on fire with any nwe products. Contrast that with Adobe's and Apples presence at CES and I'm sorry to say NAB pales in comparison.

Looking down the road a bit I predict that Avid will purchase FCP, it would be a good fit for Avid and would relieve Apple from a lot of R&D expense that I'm sure they are not seeing the kind of return on investment required for the new Apple Inc.

Unfortunately 90+% of Apple's shareholders have never heard of FCP or Motion. All Apple needs increase shareholder value amongst the main stream consumer is iMovie and iPhoto etc.. We it appears are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Looking down the road a bit I predict that Avid will purchase FCP, it would be a good fit for Avid and would relieve Apple from a lot of R&D expense that I'm sure they are not seeing the kind of return on investment required for the new Apple Inc.



As an Avid editor of 13 years, I'll be making the transition to FCP 6.0 over the summer. There is just too much bang for the buck to ignore. I'm not sure you'll ever see Apple sell FCP to Avid. And as evidenced by this years NAB, Apple blew away Avid. Apple did a good job of investing in good technology, purchasing/acquiring other companies to introduce FCP server and Color. Those investments will pay off for Apple in selling higher end Mac Pros. Also, Avid doesn't play well with 3rd parties and Apple does.

I believe Apple has the right balance of higher end professional solutions coupled with broad based consumer gadgets.

I think Apple is the American version of Sony which has broadcast and consumer solutions. But, Avid has its' work cut out for it or it's going to be purchased by someone like Panasonic someday soon. (That's been my prediction for 4 years now)

Cheers.

I worked the Panasonic booth at NAB as a P2 Workflow consultant (in fact, I'm literally on my way back home after breaking down the setup); we had all the NLE "partners" as part of our booth, Apple, Avid, Adobe, Grass Valley etc. The Apple and Adobe stations were literally next to each other allowing simulaneous viewing of both and of course, brief Q&A sessions with the consultants manning each station.

All of "us" (consultants) were expecting that Apple would follow suit to Avid and make MXF native to the timeline in FCP 6; when we were told it was not and still required the use of the P2 Import/transcode function - you should have seen the raised eyebrows and dropped jaws. That was by far, the single biggest surprise/disappointment since the majority of HVX/P2 shooters are using FCP. A few crazies are using Vegas of all things (I'm jabbing at Barry - nicely) (^_^)

I'm not fully convinced that I won't upgrade to FCP 6 - yet, mainly because there have been some very powerful additions to the FC suite, such as Smooth Cam and the Optical-flow based retiming from Shake (now part of Motion), tighter integration with Motion and a few other filters. And of course with Pro-Res 422 FCP is looking more Avid-like all the time by requiring more external hardware - which is both good and bad, but debated somewhere else.

But the other bone of contention is the HD-spec authoring; the last Apple consultant I spoke with could only *hint* that something *soon* is coming down to address the lack of Mac-based HD-DVD burners and that a few other add-on's might be coming, but nothing that gives me any solid hope of any of that is real.

As I mentioned before, Premiere CS3 (which has a Mac-Beta version available on the web now) looks very promising from several aspects, but until I test it that too is a "definite maybe" at best, especially since Encore has never been the powerful DVD authoring solution that SP4 has been and still is.

More to come as info is learned...

As an Avid editor of 13 years, I'll be making the transition to FCP 6.0 over the summer.

Just so you know. There is a new site dedicated to helping Avid editors make the switch.

Check it out at: www.avid2fcp.com

You might find it helps you transition over.

Before I share I should point out that ever since I migrated my company into pro film & video we've been using FCP exclusively with exception to exporting files to post houses for film-outs or CGI. And for the most part using FCP has been a fairly good experience.

However, the past 3 years especially has found Apple playing catch-up with the exponentially changing arena of new technology in both video camera formats (HDV/P2-MXF etc) and output options (HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, Flash etc).

As most of you probably know, SP4 can author HD-DVD but even today there are no mac-compatible HD-DVD burners, requiring sending the project to a replicator who have minimum copies starting at 5000 units. Not exactly a cost-effective or easy way to do a test burn prior to exporting the DLT. Blu-Ray support has been conspicuously missing from SP4.

The two major additions to FCP is "Color" and the Pro-Res, while both are nice add-ons Apple has failed to bring FCP up to the same level as the competition.

In FCP 6, P2-MXF is still not native to the timeline requiring the transcoding process into QT's either before or during import (something HDLog and P2 Log Pro does faster and better); this was the most suprising and disappointing news since almost all the "rumor" sources had fairly reliable information suggesting MXF would become native to the timeline. HDV rendering support has not improved; Soundtrack has not been given any updates to address lingering sound issues and as mentioned before, the fact that Blu-Ray is still missing and that there is no HD-DVD burner for the Mac on the horizon still leaves DVDSP4 crippled with creating HD-spec content.

From all I've seen here so far at NAB I can't help but be highly disappointed in the fact that Steve Jobs has redirected so much of the attention and resources away from both the OS and pro apps development and instead into the goofy iPhone project that I feel a paradigm shift has occured for Final Cut.

I'm not about to leave the Apple platform but for me Premiere CS3 is getting a serious look-over as is Avid Composer. More later as I continue the research.

Frankly I sense the interest in P2 waning. Many feel that Panny overrpriced the P2 media and the new Sony XDCAM EX looks to have aligned with a superior storage format in Expresscard34 which links right into PCI-Express for more bandwidth. This is of little consolation to HVX200 owners but I think I'd rather have ProRes 422 and Color than standout P2 performance.

Acceptable (IMO) Blu-ray authoring doesn't exist at an affordable level. These HD formats offer and unprecedented levels of integration and protection features. Blu-ray alone requires knowledge of 3 types of DRM (AACS, BD+ and ROM Mark) and HDCP encrypton. The interactive layer is comprised of BD-Java and BDMV for menu and other features. HD DVD is going to require AACS support and HDCP and the interactive layer requires HDi. Supporting both is not going to be for the faint at heart. Adobe's page on Blu-ray support in Encore has NO data. I need to know a lot more information about available features before I consider their authoring anything special or at the least acceptable.

Apple isn't a monolithic company. Because Sony cell phones are struggling doesn't mean that their camera division is. Each depart has it's own budget and revenue/profit targets. The iPhone has nothing to do with Final Cut Pro other than both relying on OS X. To think they are corollated is foolhardy.

I completely agree. The lack of integration of either Bluray or HDDVD (or both) is embarassing and tragic, especially considering Apple used to be at the front of integrating new hardware (CD-ROM at the time etc).
I'm sincerely hoping that this will come with Leopard; particularly since HDDVD and Bluray depend on strong OS integration (HDCP crap).
Of course, there's already Bluray and HDDVD drives available and people have put them into firewire and USB enclosure (and use them for backups using Toast8), but that's nowhere near what one needs in order to prepare video discs....

The whole iPhone thing seems just to be what shareholders expect. Unfortunately, it's iPods etc that seem to drive Apple's stock value (and not FCP).

Dino

I hope the iPod and iPhone and Apple TV exceed every sales target. Apple is serious about video and if they have adequate funding I'm assured of future development of Pro applications from Apple.

This is getting a little off topic but as a business owner debate about the futer of Apple/FCP could be a good thing.

Your right, the CEO of Apple's only responsibility is to manage shareholder value and as much as we may depend on continued development of FCP, that continued development is antithetical to Apple success.

Which means the more successful the iPod, iPhone and iTV the less likely Apple is to continue on with FCP. Do you think its a coincidence that Apple changed its name from Apple Computers to Apple Inc? Apple is now a consumer electronics company.

We go to NAB and witness a significant presence at the Apple booth where all of us Apple faithful pine for a bit more functionality, a bit more competitive advantage over our Avid brethren. Which I might add didn't exactly light the room on fire with any nwe products. Contrast that with Adobe's and Apples presence at CES and I'm sorry to say NAB pales in comparison.

Looking down the road a bit I predict that Avid will purchase FCP, it would be a good fit for Avid and would relieve Apple from a lot of R&D expense that I'm sure they are not seeing the kind of return on investment required for the new Apple Inc.

Unfortunately 90+% of Apple's shareholders have never heard of FCP or Motion. All Apple needs increase shareholder value amongst the main stream consumer is iMovie and iPhoto etc.. We it appears are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Absolutely absurd. Shareholder don't have to care about FCP. They care about their returns and Apple can deliver consumer product and Pro product with ease. How you can intimate that Apple is looking to sell out when the Silicon Color and Proximity acquisitions are less than a year old is mind boggling. But it does raise legit questions. If Apple didn't care about video they wouldn't have purchased new companies or End of Life'd Shake.


I worked the Panasonic booth at NAB as a P2 Workflow consultant (in fact, I'm literally on my way back home after breaking down the setup); we had all the NLE "partners" as part of our booth, Apple, Avid, Adobe, Grass Valley etc. The Apple and Adobe stations were literally next to each other allowing simulaneous viewing of both and of course, brief Q&A sessions with the consultants manning each station.

All of "us" (consultants) were expecting that Apple would follow suit to Avid and make MXF native to the timeline in FCP 6; when we were told it was not and still required the use of the P2 Import/transcode function - you should have seen the raised eyebrows and dropped jaws. That was by far, the single biggest surprise/disappointment since the majority of HVX/P2 shooters are using FCP. A few crazies are using Vegas of all things (I'm jabbing at Barry - nicely) (^_^)

I'm not fully convinced that I won't upgrade to FCP 6 - yet, mainly because there have been some very powerful additions to the FC suite, such as Smooth Cam and the Optical-flow based retiming from Shake (now part of Motion), tighter integration with Motion and a few other filters. And of course with Pro-Res 422 FCP is looking more Avid-like all the time by requiring more external hardware - which is both good and bad, but debated somewhere else.

But the other bone of contention is the HD-spec authoring; the last Apple consultant I spoke with could only *hint* that something *soon* is coming down to address the lack of Mac-based HD-DVD burners and that a few other add-on's might be coming, but nothing that gives me any solid hope of any of that is real.

As I mentioned before, Premiere CS3 (which has a Mac-Beta version available on the web now) looks very promising from several aspects, but until I test it that too is a "definite maybe" at best, especially since Encore has never been the powerful DVD authoring solution that SP4 has been and still is.

More to come as info is learned...

HD DVD burners are coming this summer

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10341423&&#post10341423

Robert Zohn is an authorized Toshiba reseller (Company- Value Electronics in Scarsdale NY) and has participated with many industry pros regarding the next generation HD formats. He sells both Blu-ray and HD DVD and has provided great info to AVS forums.

I wonder if P2-MXF support is something that Apple has planned for Leopard. I don't like the haphazardly guess but Final Cut Pro often they show some things in the Pro apps that come as API for 3rd parties at a later date. Motion was the precursor to Core Image/Video and looking at Motion 3 it became clear that the 3D movement it offers is what Apple used for Core Animation.

The issue is while FCS works on Tiger it clearly is going to improve on Leopard. Tiger cannot run 64-bit applications beyond the Unix layer. Leopard has a whole new Quicktime framework that is 64-bit with much improved encoding (h.264 with Alpha) and better routing options. I'm beginning to wonder if they will simply hold some things back that were intended for Leopard (remember they thought Leopard would be shipping in June at the latest)

I'm not yet convinced that we've seen everything. If I'm a developer I'm not pluging in P2-MXF into the current deprecated 32-bit quicktime frameworks knowing that the successor is being delivered in a scant few months.

Absolutely absurd. Shareholder don't have to care about FCP. They care about their returns and Apple can deliver consumer product and Pro product with ease. How you can intimate that Apple is looking to sell out when the Silicon Color and Proximity acquisitions are less than a year old is mind boggling. But it does raise legit questions. If Apple didn't care about video they wouldn't have purchased new companies or End of Life'd Shake.

I don't understand your point about how ending Shake has anything to do with Apple caring about video?

In 2002 Apple purchased a company I co-founded whose technology got rolled up into Motion. That;s when Apple was beating their chest about "taking over" the viedo industry. Just like the 3MHz G5 they didn't deliver. I have been living with your illusion longer than most and my assurances came from the top. And regarding the purchase of Silicon Color, it took two years to complete our transaction, a lot of things changed in those two years.

You say that shareholders don't have to care about FCP, although that may be true I bet there isn't a single Apple shareholder who doesn't know about iPods, iPhone and iTV.

The truth is, whether you want to accept it or not, the return on investment for the continued development of professional video applications is not enough. I don't know what percentage of their overall cash flow comes from selling FCP and Mac Pros, but what ever it is its less that than generated by the consumer products and that gap will widen.

Its not like this is the first time this has happened in the entertainment space, remember Ampex, Abekas, Alias, SoftImage, SGI, Mountaingate, Lightworks, CMX, Chyron, and Grass Valley?

These were all powerhouse companies who had incredible market share right up to the time they went out of business or were rolled up by someone else.

Its not that Apple doesn't have the brain power to support both the Pro and Consumer markets, they don't have the corporate will to do both. FCP is quickly becoming a liability as it relates to shareholder value.

Sorry Chuck that was an incomplete thought. Apple EoL'd Shake because they are "rumored" to be working on a successor. They also seem to be rewriting Logic Pro the audio DAW acquired with Emagic.

I do agree with you that the consumer focus of Apple is going to grow ever more present but media is Apple's competency and I see them continuing to grow. The problem with Apple has been too many transitions in a short amount of time. They ditched Copeland and bought NeXT and transitioned to a Unix based OS then they ditched PPC and went Intel.

I'd surmise that if the Open Source community didn't exist it would have been nigh impossible for Apple to come as far as they have. Thank you BSD and Linux.

I think Apple's Pro apps are lucrative. They sell Workstation Macs which have the largest margins and are now designed primarily by Intel. Apple cannot push their products without having OS X and computers running it. They have to keep the platform growing because that's where they have the most control. Apple cannot become a peripheral only company. They cannot subsist off of selling iPods or iPhones or Apple TV forever. They need the revenue and cache that comes with being one of the best known computer providers on the planet.

I see Avid as the company that is struggling more. What did they offer at NAB...hot chics. Digidesign is selling speakers now...WTF? Talking about flailing about with little direction. Avid will keep the high end but over the course of the next few Final Cut Studio updates Apple will continue to erode Avids share of the low and midrange setups.

Steve Jobs is not about money and that's what makes him dangerous. When Billy Gates' company moves into a market they are doing do to make money. If they don't see the money they bail. Apple got into doing video and audio because they wanted to and the endgame wasn't about making phat dollars. It was about creating cool products.

You don't see a "OS X Genuine Advantage now do you"?

All of "us" (consultants) were expecting that Apple would follow suit to Avid and make MXF native to the timeline in FCP 6; when we were told it was not and still required the use of the P2 Import/transcode function - you should have seen the raised eyebrows and dropped jaws. That was by far, the single biggest surprise/disappointment since the majority of HVX/P2 shooters are using FCP. A few crazies are using Vegas of all things (I'm jabbing at Barry - nicely) (^_^)

I'm still pretty convinved that this will come about (sooner or) later, however it will be a major update to Quicktime that is required before anything like that can hapen.
I have no idea when Quicktime 8 will ship ... maybe as part of Leopard? But I would suggest that if and when Quicktime does include native support for MXF and other burgeoning formats, then it will be a simple Pro Apps Update that will bring the functionality, without an explicit upgrade to FCP et al.

I'm not predicting necessarily that th efunctionality will come with Leopard, nor with the "next" major update to Quicktime. But I am predicting that it "will" happen.

SNIP

Its not that Apple doesn't have the brain power to support both the Pro and Consumer markets, they don't have the corporate will to do both. FCP is quickly becoming a liability as it relates to shareholder value.[/QUOTE]


I'm sorry Chuck, but I've got to TOTALLY disagree with you on this analysis.

The FCP product manager and others at NAB this year were delighted to announce that FCP has a worldwide PAID installed base of around 800,000 seats.

Doesn't take much math ability to figure that an upgrade that commands above $500 a pop for a physical product that in quantity probably costs vastly under $50 minus marketing and overhead to produce and ship is something most companies would salivate over in terms of contributing to bottom line health.

If even 50% of the installed base upgrades ( a laughably small figure) at even if they ALL did it at the lowest (imaginary net) upgrade price of $450 simple math tells you that would generate 188 MILLION bucks in positive cash flow to the bottom line.

If the reports are right about the iPhone reaching a million "Let me know when it's shipping" email hits - with even a 50% conversion of those to sales - and figuring that Apple's slice of the 600 bucks or so retail at 50% - that means the iPhone (in my totally guessing imaginary financial comparison) could easily yeild less bottom line profit than FCP for the forseeable future.

The reason NONE of this will happen is that I believe Apple's strategic direction is escaping you totally. It's not about any ONE product, it's about developing a LINE of products that delivers an exceptional user experience and seamless full-line connectivity.

Blink twice and I bet in a few years you'll see someone cutting then post-producing (sound, color, titles, etc.) some small piece of content on FCPStudio, having a group discussion (with visuals!) about it via iChat, posting the actual file on .Mac for secure team review, watching that cut on your iPhone right off the .Mac server - or on your Plasma via iTV. Then blasting it out to a dozen different rez versions for different uses via DVDSP.

The key is that the Apple SUITE approach means you can do any or all of this, pass files, view on multiple devices, create virtual workgroups and bunches of other stuff without ever leaving the apple chain.

Now tell me why they'd want to sell a critical (and already HUGLY profitible) link off to AVID?

Makes NO business sense unless you get stuck looking at individual PIECES rather than the whole puzzle.

Which is what I think you might be doing.

For what it's worth.

I can see why Apple's handling MXF carefully.

MXF in many cases competes with Quicktime. Apple is going to have no choice but to support it natively but they are going to take great care as to not harm their efforts to promote Quicktime.

>MXF in many cases competes with Quicktime

Only in the sense MXF its a wrapper format. AVI is a hugely widespread wrapper format too, but Apple support it, in Quicktime, already.

I can't quite see how supporting MXF in the same fashion would weaken Quicktime?

>MXF in many cases competes with Quicktime

Only in the sense MXF its a wrapper format. AVI is a hugely widespread wrapper format too, but Apple support it, in Quicktime, already.

I can't quite see how supporting MXF in the same fashion would weaken Quicktime?

It's the combination of a wrapping the content with metadata that is dangerous for Apple and Quicktime. If I'm basing my workflow on MXF why do I need Quicktime. I theoretically should have all the interoperability and metadata needs that I require.

Apple will likely slow their adoption of Native MXF until they can deliver their new Quicktime frameworks in Leopard. The only way they can compete with an open format like MXF is to make Quicktime full featured and easy to license. Since they control the software it behooves them work harder.

I think this is one of the reasons why I disagree with Chuck about Apple's committment to media. They have poured in resources to improve Quicktime at every level and their applications are what show the power of QT frameworks.

I'm all for adding MXF because open standards are generally a good thing but Apple simply need to make Quicktime the no brainer choice for situation in which MXF doesn't quite cover a particular workflows needs (I have no idea what that would be but we'll see)

>If I'm basing my workflow on MXF why do I need Quicktime. I theoretically should have all the interoperability and metadata needs that I require.

I'm following you but perhaps not quite "getting it" yet. Yes, you are basing your production workflow on MXF as that is dictated by the chosen tapeless shooting format. But your post-production workflow would nonetheless be based on Quicktime as it would be Quicktime that enables you to work with the native MXF.

If Quicktime doesn't support MXF then I feel Apple could potentially start to lose some of those customers, who are basing their production workflow on the format, to alternative platfoms that have native support.

In my previous posts about being disappointed with FCP 6 you read someone who was experiencing a strong emotional reaction to what was purported to be stunning news coming from Apple about MXF support - which didn't happen.

What did happen, is that since both the Apple and Adobe stations were literally next to each other in our Panasonic booth, the Adobe rep took advantage of a priceless opportunity - as he should - to capitlize on *my* immediate disdain for what Apple *didn't* do and proceeded to fill me with exactly what I wanted to hear, which was that the new version of Premiere CS3 would be an answer to prayer. Of which I can now honestly say was hype and not reality.

So what you see now is someone who is *admittedly* back-pedaling a bit. Let me say first, that I'm still very disappointed with the lack of MXF-native support in FCP however, after 10 minutes of running the Pr CS3 Beta Demo there's not a snowball's chance in the fire that Pr CS3 is a replacement for FCP.

Pr CS3 is without a doubt a quantum leap from it's previous iteration and in certain aspects does have greater direct integration with it's cousin software PS, Illustrator, Flash etc. But, when you get under the hood of FCP 6 you find that it still is a deeper, more detailed and cost-effective tool than any other NLE on the planet today.

With the addition of more filters, effects (especially Smooth-Cam and direct integration with Optical-Flow time remapping from Shake), Color, a nicely updated Motion with a ton of built-in parameters not previousy available - and the list goes on - FCS 2 is a great piece of work. And with the option of Pro-Res 422 and the additonal hardware it's beginning to square-off with Avid head-to-head.

The HD-DVD issues and lack of Blu-Ray support are still things that nag at me mainly because I have vendors who are constantly taunting me with their customers who are saying they want one or the other from our content. And right now, there's just no clean and simple way to accomplish that task without going to a post house to check an HD-DVD burn.

That all being said, one thing I am sure of is that once the engineers who were moved off to work iPhone are re-tasked once again to finish OS 10.5 and tweak FCP further that we'll have a little slice a heaven in the Apple-FCP world once FCP is able to take advantage of Core Animation from Leopard.

It's been suggested that both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray with both be winding down in the near future and be "almost-was" formats. I can only say from everything I saw at NAB and what my own direct vendor experiences are with their customers that's just not going to happen. Which of the two will eventually overtake the other? I doubt there will ever be a winner - but what I do see happening instead is both authoring/burners and players being able to do both rather than just one or the other. In fact, there are already one or two players on the market today that have that capability.

And Harrison: About your musings of the new XDCAM, read my NAB wrap-up report on the HVX forum for more info. You might be surprised.

I'm sorry Chuck, but I've got to TOTALLY disagree with you on this analysis.

The FCP product manager and others at NAB this year were delighted to announce that FCP has a worldwide PAID installed base of around 800,000 seats.

I think what you'll find is that Apple has shipped 800K seats since FCP first began shipping and that they don't carry anywhere near the many licenses forward with version upgrades. I don't know what that number is but its in the 10s of thousands, not hundreds. Also statistics are funny things, if you placed such an emphasis on seats sold Adobe would beat Avid and Apple combined.

[QUOTE=Bill Davis;663674]If even 50% of the installed base upgrades ( a laughably small figure) at even if they ALL did it at the lowest (imaginary net) upgrade price of $450 simple math tells you that would generate 188 MILLION bucks in positive cash flow to the bottom line.
Again, that is more likely the total amount of FCP sales, not annual cash flow.

If the reports are right about the iPhone reaching a million "Let me know when it's shipping" email hits - with even a 50% conversion of those to sales - and figuring that Apple's slice of the 600 bucks or so retail at 50% - that means the iPhone (in my totally guessing imaginary financial comparison) could easily yeild less bottom line profit than FCP for the forseeable future.
Even if your assumptions are correct regarding the revenue of FCP, over 300M cell phones have been sold, over 10M iPods [which are selling on average 300,000 per quarter] or $90M. I'm not suggesting that Apple will get even ten percent of the 300M cell phone market, however, the market cap for integrated cellphones and required services is huge compared to the professional entertainment market. Also, Apple doesn't play the 50% retail price game, I doubt resellers get 30%, which is why Apple is opening their own stores. Again these are retail stores mostly for consumer products. Yes you can purchase FCP there but its very rare if you can find a sales person older than 23 who has any idea what FCP is let alone how to use or demo it.

It's not about any ONE product, it's about developing a LINE of products that delivers an exceptional user experience and seamless full-line connectivity.
I didn't miss this point at all, I just don't happen to believe that FCP is a part of the value chain. Does the user of any of Apples consumer products need FCP do create content? For them, iMovie is great is just fine. The reason I brought up the companies who have come and gone from our industry in an earlier post is because just about all of them had aspirations of pushing their products to the mainstream market and failed. That transition is impossible for several reasons. We, early adopters of technology love to get the latest and greatest and if its only 60% baked thats even better because we can add our own special ingredients and make it special. But the consumer are pragmatists who want none of that, they want to buy it because they already use it in one form or another or because 10M of their closest friends use it.

Apple as a consumer electronics company has done a great job of marketing the fact that if you purchase an Apple anything it just works. But as much as people don't like to hear this the company that's in the best position with its software solutions is Adobe. They are pushing their consumer products up the food chain while Apple "was" trying to productize it pro applications for consumers.

I think Adobe is winning this market share battle, not because of PPro vs FCP but because of Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat, Dreamweaver and Flash. You talked about 800K seats of FCP sold, that pales in comparison to the numbers of these products sold, they are in the tens of millions. And don't forget Apple has failed at this before, remember the Newton? Apple could not make that product fly when shorty after Palm made almost the identical device, the PDA become a business staple.

I'm not saying that Apple can't compete, in fact I think with their recent change in focus they are doing a great job. But what I am saying is that continued FCP development will suffer. Apple is competing for Billions of dollars in marketshare, FCP revenue is less than 10% of that but what percentage of dollars spent is on the development of the pro-applications?

Also please don't think that I'm throwing "bombs" or damning FCP with faint praise, I want it to continue to improve, I very much want the development of FCP to increase [I can hardly wait to get version 6], but I think in order for it to live long and prosper it needs a ground up re-write. They should take all that they've learned and start over the way Adobe did. And given the economic forces at play I doubt that will happen.

I hope I'm wrong, I think Harrison's comment about the need for OSx is an intriguing one. I think that's where SGI blew it, IRIX was way ahead of everyone. Once SGI announced they were going WindowsNT and then Linux it was the beginning of the end.

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