Slashdot Mirror


Cinema Tools for Final Cut Pro

batobin writes "Looks like Apple is expanding their grasp on the film editing industry with their new release of Cinema Tools for Final Cut Pro. It enables FCP 3 to better manage film and 24 fps high density video. The product is expected to ship in May."

142 comments

  1. iPod Category? by Ford+Fulkerson · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    OK, so why is this in the iPod Category?

    --

    Somewhere in the heavens... they are waiting.
    1. Re:iPod Category? by pfb · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find its in the Media (Apple) category- which is illustrated by an image of an ipod. Quite appropiate I find.

      --
      -- ribbit
    2. Re:iPod Category? by selderrr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cause this thingie runs on an iPod ! And on an iPod only ! Jaleous as they are about the GameBoyAdv running an http server, the Apple engineers ported FinalCut to iPod.

      You'll have buy 128 poddies though and daisy chain them together... Plus a diesel generator...

  2. What's wrong with just using vi to edit. by JPriest · · Score: 4, Funny

    All graphics should be in ASCII, Anything else would be large and use more than .003% of my 386's CPU. :)

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    1. Re:What's wrong with just using vi to edit. by Aanallein · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Indeed! Long live Asciimation! :)

    2. Re:What's wrong with just using vi to edit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only Masochists use Vi to edit, everyone else uses EMACS, or Textpad et al if they're using Windows.

      Show Vi to Nielsen and the poor guy would probaly have a heart attack.

      I bet you've been brain washed by evil student hating teachers into liking Vi.

      We all know Vi how users are cultists, the techie equivilent of Dianetics.

    3. Re:What's wrong with just using vi to edit. by cheetham · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What sort of a person would use vi when they know pico is so more easier to use? ;-)

  3. Look at the label... by jojor · · Score: 0

    ...it reads "Media (Apple)"...d'uh

  4. Buyout by selderrr · · Score: 4, Informative

    it should be noted that this is one of the products they bought with the acquisition of FilmLogic. So they didn't develop this themselves.

    Impressive product nonetheless !

    What is more fascinating : consider this 24P stuff from a bandwidth point of view and think about the recent firewire related news. Native HD is going to require quite a bit more firewire bandwidth than 400mbps. Can 1600mbps firwire be that far behind?

    1. Re:Buyout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Panasonic's HD cameras use their DVCPro tape which is based on the DV Tape standard which is what MiniDV is based on. Standard DVCPro/MiniDV is 25 Mb/s. (3.1 MB/s plus audio) DVCPro HD is 100 Mb/s. But really people using HD are buying hardware cards and specialized RAIDS.

      If you're doing really high end stuff though, particularly compositing/color correction, you need uncompressed video, which is 24 MB/s for standard NTSC, so naturally uncompressed HD will even need more bandwidth. Basically for such high end solutions, firewire is not the answer.

      Besides, if you're spending $60K and up on an HD camera, can't you afford an i/o card?

      Don't get me wrong though, 1600 Mbps firewire would be able to handle DV Compressed HD video. And can you imagine the hard drive performance? Bring it on. Everyone thinks USB 2 will make firewire obsolete. Well, only if Apple flubs it up and doesn't deliver on 1600 Mbps firewire as they have planned.
      Note: Apple purchased Firewire company Zayante. This brings back employees who worked on the orginial 1394 standards. Very interesting.

    2. Re:Buyout by nedron · · Score: 2

      Actually, the newest rev of IEEE1394 can handle up to 3.2Gib/s.

      --


      * As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
    3. Re:Buyout by Parsec · · Score: 1

      How far is that from product implementation, though? I thought the next step was going to be 800Mbps.

    4. Re:Buyout by Brendor · · Score: 1

      What is more fascinating : consider this 24P stuff from a bandwidth point of view and think about the recent firewire related news. Native HD is going to require quite a bit more firewire bandwidth than 400mbps. Can 1600mbps firwire be that far behind?

      I thnk this is aimed more at FCP users who don't want to export their Edit Descision List to a Avid format before they make the "final cut." This allows editors to import a 720 x 486 version of their footage, edit it in the familliar FCP interface, and export the EDL to be procesed at a post-production faculity. At least where film is concerned.

    5. Re:Buyout by nedron · · Score: 2

      You're right, the next devices coming out are targetting the 800MiB/s implementation. We should see these Q4 of this year. Many of the vendors are targetting 1.6GiB/s for late 2003/early 2004 with 3.2 a year or so after that.

      --


      * As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
    6. Re:Buyout by nedron · · Score: 2

      Ooops, all of the B's should have been b's. I'd kill for a 800GiB/s firewire connection.

      --


      * As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
  5. Awright! Time to ditch Premiere! by Vidmaster_Steve · · Score: 2, Funny

    Excellent! Now maybe I can erase that FAGGY FAGGY Premiere from my drive and use some NON-CONSUMER editing software.

    Premiere is okay for those of you who have not had the religious experience that is working with AVID. Compared to AVID, Premiere is a worthless, Pinnacle Video-level sack of bits.

    Now, Premiere's After Effects/Photoshop intergration is incredibly sweet, something that AVIDDV doesn't do exactly right.

    Also, AVIDDV is NT-only for some goddamned reason (unless that's changed since I knuckled under and spent $2k on the NT port). So, once I get this new software, I'll actually be able to USE the G4 machine that, because I've no professional-level editing software for it, has been sitting on my desk, gathering dust.

    --
    Why is it when I hit ^R that ZSH calls me a cocksucker?
    1. Re:Awright! Time to ditch Premiere! by huntdwumpus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Avid DV Express 3.0 will be released for OS X by this summer.

  6. $2000 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    It costs $2000 dollars to buy both packages. If you add the cost of a mac which is probably going to run for about $2000 ( if you don't have a mac that is) the price comes to about $4000. How many people can actually afford that?

    Oh well, I'm just gonna stick to my PC.

    1. Re:$2000 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was insightful?! Please, this is just another typical Slashdot reader reply about Apple. "Too expensive, I'll stick with my Duron system I built for $300. No Mac for me." Let me guess, you are either 14 and haven't seen the real working world or you have a job in which the professional tool is MS Office. Apple's pro systems are just that...for PROFESSIONALS.

      Professional tools are expensive, no matter if the profession is engineering, filmaking, graphics, etc. I'm amazed that Apple can sell these tools for only $1000 a pop. That is nothing. As an engineer, I was just quoted $11K for a vision tool to test LCDs (sans hardware). I know that will blow the mind of most WAREZ using Slashdot readers, but that is pretty cheap.

      Final Cut Pro and DVD Pro Studio are not for you or me at home. iMovie and iDVD are. (Or use MS Movie maker...ok stop laughing.)

    2. Re:$2000 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when i read an article about less-expensive/more-productive tools or solutions for various fields/industries/professions...why is it that on some basic level i'm able to figure out who/what is the target of said tools/solutions?

      whether it's a government, a 20,000 person enterprise, joe blow down the street, mom&pop shops, a small 100 person firm WHATEVER.

      it's not that hard.

      figure it out.

      the product in the article was obviously not targeted for you.

      get a clue

    3. Re:$2000 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, this isn't for people who would normally use iMovie...

  7. $4000 CHEAP! by Vidmaster_Steve · · Score: 5, Informative

    Take it you've never checked prices for a Film AVID system? FilmAVID costs (since I last checked) $32k. Thirty. Two. Thousand. Dollars. American.

    Just for the software.

    Add in an AVIDMedia Capture Card, that's your paltry $4k right there, just for the capture card.

    Add in the Film Capture device, another $12-15k. Then you've got your RAIDs, your SP decks ($8-12k, depending on the brand), your monitors (not cheapass NTSC teevees, we're talking real-live production monitors, they run about $500 each, and you need at least one), and not to mention minimum of TWO >19" monitors to edit with.

    All in all, to edit film on an AVID system, you're looking at about $65k for a "good" system.

    $4k for a G4 box and the Final Cut bundle = DIRT FUCKING CHEAP.

    Not to mention that the people that this software is marketed to make $4k on a slow week (shit, I videograph weddings and parties and I make $50/hr)

    --
    Why is it when I hit ^R that ZSH calls me a cocksucker?
    1. Re:$4000 CHEAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Not to mention that the people that this software is marketed to make $4k on a slow week shit, I videograph weddings and parties and I make $50/hr)"

      I guess that's why you are the Vidmaster...
      Vidmaster cut faster, vid vid vidmaster

      freak freak

    2. Re:$4000 CHEAP! by foobar104 · · Score: 4, Informative

      FilmAVID costs (since I last checked) $32k. Thirty. Two. Thousand. Dollars. American.

      Hmm. Given that you can't even get a Media Composer for less than about $30,000, stripped, I'd say you're way off here. The Film Composer starting price is around $70,000, not counting storage.

      your monitors (not cheapass NTSC teevees, we're talking real-live production monitors, they run about $500 each, and you need at least one)

      Again I must say hmm. Maybe you're talking about a used 14" PVM or something. A decent BVM will cost you at least ten times that figure. More if you get the SDI input option.

      All in all, to edit film on an AVID system, you're looking at about $65k for a "good" system.

      No, all in all, to edit film on an Avid, you're looking at a base, entry, can't-do-it-for-less price of $70,000 or so. A "good" system will run you around $200,000.

      Just thought I'd clarify that a bit.

    3. Re:$4000 CHEAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's too much. I could build an overclocked Athlon XP box for $600 and use free software to do the same job. $4000 is too much money.

    4. Re:$4000 CHEAP! by LateToTheParty · · Score: 1

      vidmasta steve whatcha' got ta say?

    5. Re:$4000 CHEAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likewise, $20,000 for a movie camera is way too much. Why not buy a "Hi-8" camera off e-bay and edit it with a "ATI" card on your $600 Athlon. You'll be the king of your trailer park!

    6. Re:$4000 CHEAP! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      just what I was thinking. Our Symphonies cost 100K each, our Editbox FX cost 150K - our small offline G4 based Avids cost around 50K each using a single grade 2 JVC monitor, 2xMitsu VGAs, Genelec monitors, Spirit folio, £1500 desk etc and that's without any VTRs - they're all on the matrix in the CAR. A grade 1 Sony BVM is around £6500. And if you beleive an Avid set-up renders any faster than any other similarily specced PC or Mac, think again.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    7. Re:$4000 CHEAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's too much. I could build an overclocked Athlon XP box for $600 and use free software to do the same job.

      Of course you could...I wouldn't want to spend $4,000 to edit my out of focus home movies of my dog either. Mr. Anonymous Coward, I'd be very curious to know what "free software" is out there that can cut and matchback film programs...Don't spout stuff like this if you have no damned clue what it is you're talking about.

    8. Re:$4000 CHEAP! by kdogg765 · · Score: 1

      With a Final Cut Pro setup, it's not $4000 for the whole setup to be equivilant to the Avid Film Composer. I think most Telecine machines cost about a million dollars, so you would probably pay for someone else to do that instead of buying your own. So, you'd be working with some kind of video transfer of your film. Once you capture the footage into Final Cut Pro, you would use the Cinema Tools to undo the 24-->29.97FPS conversion so that you are back to the original framerate. Then you would edit your film in FCP at 24fps and then use Cinema Tools to generate a supposedly accurate edit decision list that you would use to cut the original camera negative to cut your movie. Could you do that with FCP+Cinema Tools cheaper than Avid Film Composer? You bet, but it's not a $4000 matter unless you are given a DV transfer and happen to have a DV deck, etc. Don't forget about good pro video monitors either. If you're not using a DV transfer of film, then you'll need a capture card if you are coming from some analog or any non-DV source. That could be from $600 to $10,000+ If you think you're going to do HD resolution final editing with a FCP system for $4000 you're in for a shock. You'd need a LOT more than $30k. When you just need an EDL, why would you pay all that money for extra hardware you don't need? -K

  8. And Shake and Tremour as well by SignoffTheSourcerer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And since they bought out Nothing Real, this doesn't actually come as a surprise.

    --
    Ordo Militum Unix.
  9. Hacker Mating Rituals by Rezalution · · Score: 5, Funny

    from the now-i-can-finish-my-documentary-on-hacker-mating-r ituals dept.

    Hackers? Mating? Wouldn't this just be a lot of stories about late nights looking at Pr0n?

    1. Re:Hacker Mating Rituals by Sentry21 · · Score: 2

      Maybe he's referring to filming 'CowboyNeal does Connecticut'.

      --Dan

  10. apple by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

    Has any else noticed that the primary buyers of Apple's nowadays are film/photo people? They certianly have a solid market there, but I think it odd that they push themselves so much to compete with PCs when they operate on a seperate level. I know many people who have both, each one for it's own strenghs.

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    1. Re:apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's the PC/Mac thing. Apple figured out long ago that there was no way it could ever just compete in price with a PC. So now it's going after places where it can be the "PC" (like going after Avid). They're going after a lot of markets like this now. As they corner those markets, those markets are going to start buying/standardizing on Macs. As that happens, schools that teach these subjects standardize on Macs. More Macs, more Mac software. More Mac software, more users. More Mac users, lower computer prices. Lower computer prices, more Mac users. The Second Coming of Apple is beginning to take shape. A lot of complaints are being resolved (which seem to be mainly pricing issues) but will just take time as this whole strategy is assembled.

    2. Re:apple by stripes · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Has any else noticed that the primary buyers of Apple's nowadays are film/photo people? They certianly have a solid market there, but I think it odd that they push themselves so much to compete with PCs when they operate on a seperate level

      Well one can be pushed out of a niche. For example it is a big pain to try to use Canon's EOS-D30 or D60 RAW conversion software on a Mac...unless you run OS9. For Windows Canon has decided to support NT2000, WinME and XP, but still no OSX support. That is for a $2000 camera (or if you were lucky $1499 referb for the D30). I doubt that would happen if Canon thought Apple had the same kind of market share (photogs, not "normal people") as Wintel does.

      Or look at desktop publishing, in the mid-80s the Mac was it. PCs were good for accountants, but if you wanted page layouts, it was Mac all the way. Now windows does it well enough that nobody cares.

      Pushing into niche markets is a good idea for Apple, but that alone isn't enough because they are too hard to defend.

    3. Re:apple by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't worry about the D30/60 just yet. Digital SLRs are NOT there yet - that's why the D60 is 4 times the price of a Nikon F60 for LESS capability. I say we're two years away from switchover, and RAW will be replaced by a proper standard. Everyone will support it, Apple's PCs will be more expensive but still more attractive and reliable. Photojournalists will STILL use Powerbooks...

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    4. Re:apple by stripes · · Score: 2
      I wouldn't worry about the D30/60 just yet. Digital SLRs are NOT there yet - that's why the D60 is 4 times the price of a Nikon F60 for LESS capability.

      Sure, except it has three signifigant advantages over the F60. It comes with effectavly 1000s of rolls of free film and proccessing (not printing though), the proccessing is instant not "one hour" including a histogram, and lastly they mount Canon lenses :-)

      Instant processing and the histogram are really useful tools for learning how to use complex lighting setups.

      RAW will be replaced by a proper standard.

      Could be, but currently Nikon has NEF, Canon has RAW, Sigma and Fuji have their own formats (both new this year). Since the "raw" format is closely tied to the color filter array layout, and the spacing of the sensors on the CCD/CMOS I'm not sure there will be a standard for it, unless those things stabalise (say, a grid pattern for sensors, and X3-like RGB samples at each pixel...or a Fuji like honeycomb layout).

      Apple's PCs will be more expensive but still more attractive and reliable.

      I don't think Apple's hardware is more reliable then Wintel hardware. Their software tends to be though.

      Photojournalists will STILL use Powerbooks...

      Recently Apple has been doing pretty much everything right. If they keep it up PJs will still use PowerBooks. If they have a few major screwups there could easially be no more Apple. I'm hoping they keep doing it all right.

    5. Re:apple by twiztidlojik · · Score: 0

      > Well, I've got this powerbook and this Dell tower. My Powerbook takes all the abuse(I haul it around in my backpack every day), and guess which computer needed a new mobo, new ram, and a new video card because they all were defective? If you said the Dell, you are correct! It's a tower! It doesn't get dropped! It's practically impervious to abuse, but defective parts will be defective parts. The only part that hasn't worked for me was my airport card, and that was replaced promptly. Dell, on the other hand, wanted something crazy like $2000 for replacement parts, and they aren't even good anymore. Like, a 100mHz bus mobo, and only 128 MB of ram(PC-100 RAM! PC-100!), and a TNT2! Jeez, talk about overpriced!

      --
      I will now redundantly add my name to the end of my post. You know, in case you forgot me or something.
    6. Re:apple by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      "Sure, except it has three signifigant advantages over the F60. It comes with effectavly 1000s of rolls of free film and proccessing (not printing though), the proccessing is instant not "one hour" including a histogram, and lastly they mount Canon lenses :-)"

      Of course, Nikon lenses are far superior to Canon! Shit, they're almost as good as Zeiss! :-] But I still maintain that the D30, D60, EOS 1, D1 and F100 cameras (despite all being really excellent) are definitely transitional products only, as the support lens ranges that simply are not designed to function correctly with them. What's a standard lens on a D60, 28mm? That can't be right. The fact that Canon and Nikon are offering these SLRs at all shows a clear intention to move to larger imaging chips when possible. We have both the Sigma/Foveon product and the Contax N1 imminent, and these two might change the situation substantially by themselves. Anyone buying a digital SLR right now is either doing editorial/PJ photography or has more money than sense. Still, if someone were to GIVE me a D60 or a D1x....

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    7. Re:apple by stripes · · Score: 2
      Of course, Nikon lenses are far superior to Canon! Shit, they're almost as good as Zeiss! :-]

      Heh, say that after you handle the 70-200L f/2.8 IS :-)

      (yeah, yeah, they both make great lenses...so does Pentax and Minolta for that matter)

      But I still maintain that the D30, D60, EOS 1, D1 and F100 cameras (despite all being really excellent) are definitely transitional products only, as the support lens ranges that simply are not designed to function correctly with them.

      All cameras are transitional, some more then most.

      What's a standard lens on a D60, 28mm? That can't be right.

      If you mean what covers the same field as a 50mm yes a 31.25mm covers it. If you mean what do I carry on it most of the time, well a 50mm. I like long lenses, and using a 50mm f/1.4 is way way less expensive then a 85mm f/1.2, like half the cost of the camera less expensive :-)

      I'm not quite as fond of what it does to my 100mm for people pictures, but it gives a little more range for macro shots.

      The fact that Canon and Nikon are offering these SLRs at all shows a clear intention to move to larger imaging chips when possible.

      It sure looks like Canon is looking to get closer to full frame. They do have the 1.6x of the D30/D60 and the 1.3x of the 1D. Lots of people want full frame. More people just want wide angles. Problem is CCDs (and I guess) CMOS sensors have more light fall off problems then film, so it is possible there is really no way to get full 35mm frame coverage without designing new lenses!

      All of Nikon's digitals have used the exact same multiplier. There is some chance they are going to make a new set of lenses designed to cover just that. They can be lighter and cheaper that way, and if they can make some really really wide angles, they might manage to do it. It could work out really well. It is also in line with things they have done in the past (like G lenses). It is also possible they are reaching for full frame like everyone else.

      We have both the Sigma/Foveon product and the Contax N1 imminent, and these two might change the situation substantially by themselves.

      Sigma's CCD is smaller then Canon's D30/D60 sensor. Contax's N1 is a year late, and they missed two more deadlines in as many months. I think it is a cool product, and would love to see it on the market. The CCD it uses has been out for like 2 or 3 years!

      Anyone buying a digital SLR right now is either doing editorial/PJ photography or has more money than sense.

      (you forgot to list the porn industry, I would imagine the D30/D60/D100 would work great there; it also works well for finding the right levels for studio lights)

      I'm not sure the D30/D60 is up to PJ standards. Not waterproof, not the best AF. I think the Nikon D100 has better AF, but still isn't waterproof. It is also a whole lot easier to learn new technique on.

      I'm a bit under a year from saving enough on film and processing to pay for my D30 based on my old usage rate. I'm probably four months from it if you look at my current shooting rates. Since I don't really think I want a D60, I don't see it as dumb since I'll almost definitely save enough to make the D30 free before I no longer want the D30.

      Besides, I have more fun with the D30, so from that point of view it's been a better purchase then my last VCR, a lot of recent book buys, some movies I have been too, and some of the cable (er, satellite) channels. I still have a blast when I pick it up.

    8. Re:apple by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      "I'm not sure the D30/D60 is up to PJ standards."

      I used to work as a PJ and plenty of people used to use things like EOS5s and Nikon F801s (N8008s), as well tough gear like EOS1s and F3s and F4s. I used to use two Contax 167s and an RTS3 - only got my beautiful RTS now :-] well, along with a little Fuji 2600 digital and a Yashica FX-D, that is...

      Obviously, I want to see the N Digital, but the cost is just stupid when you compare with film - I also feel that the in camera processing and storage situation needs more time, Canon has done well with the EOS 1D in terms of speed, but I played with a D30 and found it's slow responses really hard to come to terms with. Don't forget, RTS stands for Real Time System :-] I just think that we're gonna see massive improvements over the next year or two, I'm sure that within 2 years we'll see a camera like the D30 at $750 or less anyway.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    9. Re:apple by stripes · · Score: 2
      Canon has done well with the EOS 1D in terms of speed, but I played with a D30 and found it's slow responses really hard to come to terms with.

      What part of the D30 seemed slow? I know the focus is slow, but if you prefocus it seems fast to me. They did halve the release response time in the D60, but since I havn't used one I can't say if that is really noticable, so I'm wondering...

      (actually yesterday I was taking shots of the distorted reflections from an office building, and a bird flew across and I mashed the shutter, the camera seemed slow to react...but I think at least half of that was my thumb not responding...)

      I just think that we're gonna see massive improvements over the next year or two

      That's for sure. The AF on low end digital cameras still isn't up to the AF on film cameras (except maybe on the D100). Aside from that we know CPUs tend to get faster, and memory tends to get bigger for the same price, so processing should get better...well as long as we don't keep growing the image size :-)

      I'm sure that within 2 years we'll see a camera like the D30 at $750 or less anyway.

      I don't think you will be able to get a camera like the D30 in 2 years (you can't get one from Nikon, Fuji, or Canon now...and I don't think the Sigma is really the same, but I would like to see a real review). It would be nice if the low end DSLRs were under $1k though. Not so nice if they stick to the old lame Canon IX AF system though. That just has to go!

    10. Re:apple by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      I don't DO autofocus, but I se absolutely no reason why the AF should be slower on a D30 than on any other EOS SLR. There IS, however, a distinct shutter release lag compared to a film camera, and a serious lack of sequence shooting ability. My RTS III can do an autobracketing sequence of three frames in around the same time as the D30 manages one, not to mention that it can happily blaze away for 37 frames without missing a beat. Digital cameras should be able to BEAT that performance by rights, let alone match it.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    11. Re:apple by stripes · · Score: 1
      I don't DO autofocus, but I se absolutely no reason why the AF should be slower on a D30 than on any other EOS SLR.

      Smaller light path, pretty much the same size as an APS SLR. They used a AF module from their last APS SLR. However their last APS SLR was some time ago, and an intro level AF system, so it is no worse then the AF from an EOS-IX, which was about the same as the EOS Rebel of the same era. However the Rebel has gotten better since then, and $2000 EOS cameras have much better AF then the old IX...except for the $2000 D30/D60...

      There IS, however, a distinct shutter release lag compared to a film camera,

      Thanks, I guess I never noticed that compaired to my ELAN. It is definitly much faster then the digital P&S cameras by a half second to a full second, so I guess the ~0.1 second delay seems like nothing to someone use to more, and a whole lot to someone who is use to none.

      Does your RTS have a pellicle mirror?

      and a serious lack of sequence shooting ability.

      About the same as the low end film cameras (twice as fast as the Rebel 2000, slightly slower then the ELAN 7). Slower then $2000 film cameras though.

      Even the EOS-1D's 8 fps is slower then the EOS RT's 10 fps.

      Digital cameras should be able to BEAT that performance by rights, let alone match it.

      RAM prices will have to drop a lot before affordable digitals can do that...or FLASH has to get a whole lot faster. The D30 had some odd buffer behaviour -- if you release the shutter it has to drain the buffer before you can take more shots (even if it is say, half empty). The D60 fixed that.

      Maybe JPEG2000 will help a bit, smaller images means less I/O...if they can be compressed fast enough.

    12. Re:apple by dubiousmike · · Score: 1

      Many manufactureres are still developing support for OSX. I work for one of the biggest plugin manufacturers for video and the only partner we have that supports OSX currently is Apple.

    13. Re:apple by daviddennis · · Score: 2

      Interesting to see so many D30 owners. I bought mine in early January and really love it to death. I've taken over 2500 pictures since I bought it, while I took only 1,100 pictures in a year when I had a Coolpix 990, so obviously the design has been a major success for me.

      I think your delay is because of one of the more aggraviting features of the D30 - if you press the shutter the moment the autofocus is confused by something, it will refuse to take the picture. There should be some kind of override (say pressing the shutter release harder or something). Problem is that you lose pictures which would be useful to have even if the focus wasn't perfect, such as birds outdoors at f/22, which are going to be in decent focus no matter what you do.

      I solve the problem by using manual focus most of the time, but sometimes you really need the speed of an autofocus system, especially for the aforementioned birds.

      Other than that and with continuous shooting filling up the buffer, I've never had any trouble with the D30's responsiveness.

      And it's probably just as well I didn't wait and get the D60, since the pictures would be double the size, and they're already plenty big. Or maybe that's a rationalization. You decide.

      D

    14. Re:apple by stripes · · Score: 2
      I think your delay is because of one of the more aggraviting features of the D30 - if you press the shutter the moment the autofocus is confused by something, it will refuse to take the picture. There should be some kind of override (say pressing the shutter release harder or something). Problem is that you lose pictures which would be useful to have even if the focus wasn't perfect, such as birds outdoors at f/22, which are going to be in decent focus no matter what you do.

      There are several overides (and they are available on most EOS cameras, not just the D30). First in AI Focus the inital frame will be taken even if there is no focus lock. Second in MF mode as you say the camera does not wait for focus lock. Third if you use CF4 (I think 4 -- it is 4 on most EOS cameras) to assign AE only to shutter and AF to * then a full press of the shutter takes the picture even without focus lock. That is the mode I use it in because it makes the focus-meter-compose dance much quicker (at least in the M exposure mode). The huge downside is on the EOS-D30 you lose the ability to do flash exposure lock because that is on the * key! You also lose AE lock, but when you shoot in M there isn't an AE lock because it isn't needed.

      As an aside except for the EOS-D30/D60 all EOS cameras over $1000 have a dedicated FEL button (EOS-3 and EOS-1v, and I thjink the old A3E, and old 1/1n/1RS).

      Other than that and with continuous shooting filling up the buffer, I've never had any trouble with the D30's responsiveness.

      I normally don't, but once in a while...

      And it's probably just as well I didn't wait and get the D60, since the pictures would be double the size, and they're already plenty big. Or maybe that's a rationalization. You decide.

      Well it isn't a slam dunk that's for sure. I think the pictures look somewhat better (esp at higher ISOs), and there is way more margin for cropping, but I'm glad I had the extra months of joy from the D30 :-) If the D60 had better AF there is a chance I would buy one (and sell the D30, or keep it for backup).

  11. High Density Video? by huntdwumpus · · Score: 4, Informative

    24 fps high density video ...?

    That's a new one on me. I think you meant "high-definition (HD) video."

    1. Re:High Density Video? by jmcneill · · Score: 1

      Nah, they meant "high density". It's a movie about Jon Katz.

    2. Re:High Density Video? by batobin · · Score: 1

      Sorry about that. As the submitter, I take full responsibility.

      Too many acronyms to remember, I guess...

  12. HD Cinema display by Zo0ok · · Score: 1

    They have also a 23 inch TFT display at 1920x1200. Yummi ;)

  13. 24 Fps ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think they meant 24 fps either

    As no self respecting slashdotter is going to put up with only 24 fps !

    And no quotes about "24 fps" ought to be good enough for anyone, hmm sounds like a bill quote there.

    We pay top dollar for our graphics card and we want at least 100 fps for everything..

    Yes even if we're playing Nethack, we want out FPS dammit.

    1. Re:24 Fps ? by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 1

      24fps is cinematic (big screen) frame rate. Unless you have just guzzled a case of Jolt Espresso, you probably aren't able to see the difference in a movie. 3D graphics sometimes need the extra kick to not look choppy, though.

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    2. Re:24 Fps ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Methinks Mr. Oculus should open up his dictionary and look up the word "sarcasm"...

  14. Need a comparison by Beliskner · · Score: 1

    Same old advertising hype. Is there a tomshardware equivalent for comparing movie-making software like Adobe Premiere, Alias WaveFront Maya, Cinema 4D, Videowave, Worldbuilder, etc. ?

    --
    A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
    1. Re:Need a comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adobe Premiere edits video, Maya creates three dee, C4D is also a three dee package. It's kind of hard to compare those to each other.

    2. Re:Need a comparison by Sycophant · · Score: 1

      Not really, although there are heaps of editing sites (think EditDot) - I am currently editing a 90-minute DV feature film for a festival on my G3-400 with Final Cut Pro 2.0 and I chose that over the other options available to be (being Adobe Premiere on a Mac or PC, Avid Media Composer on a custom-made IBM IntelliStation or Avid DVExpress on a high-end AMD system).

      Final Cut Pro is amazing when you consider it comes from a company who have never really ventured into this sort of product previously.

    3. Re:Need a comparison by Pope · · Score: 1

      FCP was written by Macromedia, and you can tell just by the registration box and preferences dialog: craptastic Macromedia through and through. The actual rest of FCP is wonderful tho.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  15. A bit for your buck. by NullStream · · Score: 2, Funny

    "10MB of available disk space required for installation"
    (from http://www.apple.com/cinematools/specs.html)

    So $1K AMR for a 10Mb piece of software. They could at least put in a few DVD's of Job's famous "never been done before" speaches and
    maybe one of his turtleneck shirts or something. And I thought Adobe was nuts for charging $1+ for photoshop and a per page fee for a usable version of Acrobat.

    Sure the size of the program has nothing to do with it's value though when you spend a bucket of cash you feel ripped off when you are returned with just a sandwich bag of product.

    --
    "Survival of the fittest Max, and we've got the fucking gun!" - Pi
    1. Re:A bit for your buck. by pandemonia · · Score: 1

      One can tell you'd never buy yourself a Rolex.

      --
      -mz
    2. Re:A bit for your buck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is that they should charge say $10 for this product because it's only 10 megs. So game developers should charge $650 for a game that takes up a whole CD? Use more logic.

    3. Re:A bit for your buck. by stripes · · Score: 4, Insightful
      So $1K AMR for a 10Mb piece of software. They could at least put in a few DVD's of Job's famous "never been done before" speaches and maybe one of his turtleneck shirts or something. And I thought Adobe was nuts for charging $1+ for photoshop and a per page fee for a usable version of Acrobat.

      Well to be honest most people don't need this product, so trying to make a profit (or clear the dev costs) is going to need high prices. Heck, most people don't have DV cams, and most of the ones that do can get by with iMovie. Of the ones that can't get by with iMovie, most don't need more then what Final Cut Pro does. The few that do can afford $1000, right? And since there are only 300 or so people that need it, charging $30 won't make the dev costs back at all...

      Sure the size of the program has nothing to do with it's value though when you spend a bucket of cash you feel ripped off when you are returned with just a sandwich bag of product.

      First we bitch at MS for making a 12G install of MS Office because it's too bloated, and now at Apple for producing a lean mean fighting machine?

    4. Re:A bit for your buck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well to be honest most people don't need this product, so trying to make a profit is going to need high prices
      good idea, boss.

    5. Re:A bit for your buck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if I paid that much for a Pentium 4, it had better be the size of the entire case....you oughta see how big I want the heatsink.

    6. Re:A bit for your buck. by daviddennis · · Score: 2

      If you want Final Cut Pro cheap, look to the archaeologists on eBay. There are a lot of people who sell ancient, shrink-wrapped versions of old software like Final Cut Pro 1.0 for about $200. Then upgrade to 3.0 for $299 and you have it for $500.

      I've done this with a couple of programs (Final Cut Pro, After Effects production bundle), and it's always gone splendidly well for me. And yes, they are full, registerable versions. Just watch out for Academic versions; if there's any ambiguity at all in the listing, ask.

      D

    7. Re:A bit for your buck. by stripes · · Score: 2
      If you want Final Cut Pro cheap, look to the archaeologists on eBay. [...]. Then upgrade to 3.0 for $299 and you have it for $500.

      Thanks for the tip. I may try it on PhotoShop.

  16. FCP and Film by kdogg765 · · Score: 1

    Hopefully this will solve some of the issues that have existed with Film Logic negative cut lists. I've been wondering for a long time what was going to come out of that purchase. Now, it will be very interesting to see what happens with Nothing Real. They are working on an OSX port of Shake. Maybe we'll see a $8000 price drop in that program? Look out After Effects. I think Final Cut is a fantastic program. One of the major differences between Avid and Final Cut Pro is scalability. If I buy Final Cut Pro and decide to go from DV to HD, I can add in a hardware card and some fast storage and presto - HD editing with Final Cut Pro. If you look at Avid (remember XPress DV 3 is also for OSX) I cannot upgrade from XPress DV to say, the full version of XPress without considerably more expense in from Avid. Personally, I'm more than happy to see more film oriented products coming out. I'm happy to have the option of FCP for film now rather than looking at and then running away from the price of a Film Composer setup. -K

    1. Re:FCP and Film by UberLame · · Score: 1

      What the heck. Shake and After Effects have nothing to do with Final Cut Pro. Those two programs are for special effects, compositing, rotoscoping, etc, while FCP is all about editing.

      --
      I'm a loser baby, so why don't you kill me.
  17. *drools* by Vidmaster_Steve · · Score: 0, Troll

    Man, I could anally-violate you with a beer bottle.

    God knows I've got about ten of 'em on my desk tongiht.

    Heh

    --
    Why is it when I hit ^R that ZSH calls me a cocksucker?
  18. icon by MouseR · · Score: 2

    Just as a quick note: Final Cut Pro doesn't (yet?) run on the iPod. :-)

    1. Re:icon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll port that over as soon as we finish getting a web server running on it.

    2. Re:icon by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 1

      There's a bit in the OfflineRT section of the FCP pages that mentions using the iPod as storage, but no on-Pod editing.

      I think the iPod's wheel/buttons would make editing a breeze... I wonder if we could get apple to use the iPod's controller for editing... Get a mouse/iPod interface and hardly touch the keyboard...

      Then again, maybe not. : )

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    3. Re:icon by twiztidlojik · · Score: 0

      Hmm. Anyone heard of servering software for the newton? We could just port that over or something.

      --
      I will now redundantly add my name to the end of my post. You know, in case you forgot me or something.
  19. Re:Cool by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Statements like that are what are wrong with us today.

    When do you need to make cinema-quality video? I understand people wanting the cool technology, but at some point you have to be content. You have to accept that you can never have the newest/fastest/coolest/best thing for very long (unless you have a 7 figure disposable income).

    People claim they can't live without Photoshop, and they actively obtain the newest version. But how many people stop to think "Gee, I've been using Photoshop for 8 years now, maybe I should save up and buy a copy."

    I'm not a software purist, who has sent a check to every shareware developer whose program he has used more than twice. I won't say that I don't have any software I didn't pay for, (I use IE and Mozilla ;) but I have paid for software I considered worthwhile. That includes a legal copy of Photoshop.

    The reality is that we end up spending money on the software we don't own and don't need. If you ever bought a bigger hard drive instead of deleting LightWave, 3D Studio Max, and Maya, you spent money on that software. If you really use the software regularly, for more than playing around, it's probably worth investing money in. If you use it for an occupation, you have probably considered the legal implications.

    I won't waste my time telling people not to steal software. Just consider the makers. If nobody bought Photoshop, Adobe would give up on it. If you and 9 friends all use Photoshop frequently, get together and buy it. Is it what Adobe wants? No. Is it better for Adobe than getting a copy on KaZaA? Yes.

    Just my opinion.

    --
    Freedom of information doesn't mean information should be free. Just because you can read the book doesn't mean you shouldn't pay for it.

    --
    That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
  20. Solution to Poincare Conjecture on film at 11! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Yes, but will this let me produce a film of a 3-d rubber band wrapped around a 4-d sphere shrinking to a point???

  21. Why this is significant by d0n+quix0te · · Score: 1

    For one this allows film users to use Final Cut without jumping through hoops. Go ahead and use 16mm or 35 mm. Cinematools is more of a tracking database that captures the relationship between the original film and the final edited movie. Much like a "codebook" for those familiar with that. This makes the whole telecining nightmare quite manageable.

    Also this allows you to mix 29.97 fps NTSC with 24fps film capture! This is an enabling product for Apple and will open many doors in the movie industry.

  22. OT: Are there any decent open source video tools by bear_phillips · · Score: 1

    I am too lazy to spend time searching the net. So does anyone know of any decent open source video editing software. Nothing fancy, just enough to make some videos of my kids for the grandparents.

    --
    http://www.windmeadow.com/
  23. you get what you pay for . period by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    So Apple think they can compete with 65k$ systems ?

    sorry but that is positivly laughable, like the film industry even care about price

    Quality costs period, sure a Skoda does the same job as a Mercedes but the Mercedes is still 10 times the price and there is no shortage of buyers, why is that ?

    because quality products cost proper money
    10k is chump change in the Film business

    1. Re:you get what you pay for . period by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Here's the thing about the film business. Most of the editing and compositing work in Hollywood is done on a flat-rate contact. In other words, one house says, "Cut your film at my post house for $50,000," and another says, "Cut it at mine for $40,000." The second house wins.

      The second house was able to under-bid the first one because they bought twenty G4s with FCP to do their off-lining, instead of 20 Avid Media Composers. The G4s cost about $8,000 apiece, while a Media Composer goes for somewhere around $100,000. So the second house kept their expenses down, under-bid the job, and got the work.

      For film editing, yeah, quality costs. But quality only matters when you go to do the final edit. The vast majority of the work is done in the offline, and if you can cut costs there, you're doing it right.

      Basically you don't know what you're talking about.

    2. Re:you get what you pay for . period by akac · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Apple also took the $$$$$ expensive WebObjects software from about $25k per CPU down to $699. Same software - EXCELLENT software. As good as .NET (which is another story - I'd say that .NET didn't copy Java, they copied WebObjects) - MUCH better than J2EE.

    3. Re:you get what you pay for . period by Lars+T. · · Score: 2

      This is a first: Apple products must suck because they are too cheap.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  24. Re:OT: Are there any decent open source video tool by LennyDotCom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Be careful what you ask for. In the mid 90's I asked "where can i find a shareware or free c compiler?" on the news groups. Someone suggested Linux that icame with one. Well I sstill haven't learne dhow to program but I sure learned alot about linux ;-)

    --
    http://Lenny.com
  25. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of bozo are you? When do you need film quality editing? When you are a professional looking for film quality editing, that' s when.

    Geez...

  26. Grasp? by saintlupus · · Score: 1

    Looks like Apple is expanding their grasp on the film editing industry

    I don't know if the software portion of Apple exactly has a "grasp" on film editing -- the hardware seems to get paired up with custom software from companies like Avid and Media 100.

    Don't get me wrong, Final Cut Pro is a hell of a program, but it seems more of a median between iMovie and a serious editing package.

    (I don't work in the field, but I work at a college with a pretty well-funded video editing program. So I could be mistaken; this is just my impression.)

    --saint

    1. Re:Grasp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that BU and other smaller film schools are using final cut pro. Bigger film schools like USC and NYU film school use avid, but a lot of people are using final cut pro.

    2. Re:Grasp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Avid and Media 100 should be scared. Except for the highest end applications, I don't think there is anything that you can do creatively with Avid or Media 100 that you can't do with FCP. One of FCP's best qualities is upward expandibility. Today you buy FCP, tomorrow you could have an HD system. There are a plethora of i/o cards, real-time systems, plug-ins. software packages that all work with FCP. Many After Effects plug-ins even work with FCP. There isn't anything close to what FCP can do for the price.

      The new Avid HD system (while it is a phenomenal system) starts at $300,000. Can you spend that much money on one workstation?

      Media 100 recently introduced the 844/x which can do some obsence real time things and a lot cheaper than an Avid, but this system starts at $60,000. Final Cut Pro out of the box does way more than a $15K Media 100i system. Clearly, Media 100 knows they've got to go higher end, because Apple is gobbling up the pro market from them. The $15,000 Media 100 system I used to use only gave me 2 video tracks. Isn't that some kind of joke?

      The old guys in the industry think they need $500,000 workstations to do rough cuts. But when individuals and small firms start creating content with very low overhead, the industry behemoths will have to follow in order to cash in on the profitability and stay competitive.

    3. Re:Grasp? by KillerKane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Final Cut Pro is eating heavily into Avid's market share (as well as Media100's). I think I saw stats that claimed something like 30% of the market for FCP. That's without the new stuff. I have friends who've worked with both Avid and Media's stuff, and are now actively switching or planning to switch over to FCP. Of course, this is just anecdotal evidence, but it points to something I've been wondering about for awhile. namely, the democratization of film.

      Apple gave us a set of tools in the 80's that democratized publishing. Took it out of the hands of those that could afford hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment and consumables, and required people who could learn to code, and made it so anyone with a few grand and no arcane technical skills could do it. Badly, of course, but neverthless....It demolished that industry. Then they democratized prepress, that industry is almost gone. (I know, I worked in both of those industries.) Now it's film. Jobs has said that movies are going to be the DTP of the 21st century (or words to that effect) I think he knows what he's doing. If you think of Hollywood as an association of typesetters in the mid-80's, you can see why they're fighting anything that lets people create/use media on computers. The train is coming. More and more independent films made, more ways of distributing new content than just showing in theatres, etc., etc.

      Sam Goldwyn, we're coming for you...

      --
      There is a thin line between genius and insanity. I have erased that line. -- Oscar Levant
    4. Re:Grasp? by Sycophant · · Score: 1

      FCP is very heavily in use already, especially in TV News environments and for the creation of TVCs.

      A friend of mine is a professional online editor, he has been editing television on Avid MediaComposer and Xpress for at least three years now, but has recently picked up a job at a company doing high-end TVC work with FCP. They made the switch big time, retired their old Avid MC to the sidelines as an offline suite and do all their final edits with FCP, After Effects and Combustion.

      It's also making it's way into a number of the local TV production houses as they start to look at doing more editing in-house rather than paying $300/hr for an Avid online suite.

      Personally, I much prefer editing on FCP to Avid now, the interface is a little more natural and it just seems to flow better.

    5. Re:Grasp? by EddydaSquige · · Score: 1

      Just to point out an example of FC being a serious program, that movie Waking Life did all of the post production on desktop Macs, and all the editing was done on one Mac using FCP2

    6. Re:Grasp? by dubiousmike · · Score: 1

      My company sells plugins for all major NLE's, AVID, Media 100, Canopus, Discreet, Apple, ect.

      Shops that used to have 5 AVID systems now have 1 AVID and 4 FCP stations. Not only is FCP demolishing the NLE market, but everything related to it.

      Unfortunately, FCP isn't a true substitution for an AVID or Media 100, but it is close enough that most people don't care and don't really notice the difference.

  27. Re:Cool by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 1

    I didn't intend to indicate the software was useless. However, the average user (i.e. "home movie spectaculars") doesn't need it. If you are a professional who needs the film-quality editing, then this is a great thing.

    And you can pay for it.

    --
    That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
  28. It's worth noting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    That Avid could enable the "real" 24p editing mode on DV Xpress simply by updating everyone's dongles - it's just disabled through software because it's one of the "high-end" bread and butter type options that Avid reserves for their more expensive systems.

    Final cut doing this will probably force Avid to enable it as well - and I'm all in favour of all editing software becoming more powerful at a better price. Better for everyone!

    DVX "powerpack" already includes software for tracking film key numbers for film matchback editing, so it's easy enough to go that way too, although it's not a "true" 24 frame edit.

  29. Re:OT: Are there any decent open source video tool by sunya · · Score: 2, Informative

    Kino for DV editing :

    http://www.schirmacher.de/arne/kino/

    Then there was Broadcast2000 (which mig still be availble via sourceforge). Check with Linux Media Arts :

    http://www.linuxmediaarts.com
    I Think they maintain Broadcast2000 now...

    and for the non-OSS stuff check out :
    http://www.mainconcept.com

    --
    MLT - simple and robust open source multimedia framework for Linux
  30. Apple future... by pinkpineapple · · Score: 2

    Maybe, just maybe, Apple should considere going the Avid business and realease a quad G4 board that fits in a Dual Athlon 2GHz/Xeon 2.4GHz?

    --
    -- I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
    1. Re:Apple future... by Sentry21 · · Score: 2

      Sorry, are you referring to an ATX case? I'm a little unclear.

      Either way, I think selling a quad-proc G4 (G5? We'll see what happens when they come out) bundled with Final Cut Pro/Cinema Tools and equipped with the latest (3.2Gbps?) Firewire spec, sporting a 23" cinema display would be the way to go. It'd cost a few (ten) grand, but it'd be worth it.

      --Dan

  31. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't believe that paying for software is a moral act. I paid money for the hardware -- the software ought to be free. After all, software is nothing more than data. I wouldn't pay for data that I can download for free.

  32. at least Apple knows their target market by mjolnir_ · · Score: 2, Funny

    On http://www.apple.com/cinematools/ just above the Apple logo on the display, note a teeny tiny little Dock icon for:

    Quake III Arena.

    1. Re:at least Apple knows their target market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, the sure do know their audience. Imagine doing some real industrial strength film editing and during the render, playing some Q3A on the same machine! Dude, that's worth 6k at least.

  33. FCP is a valid application...... by johnpaul191 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FCP is right up there with the other big applications for professional work..... FCP3 has made a lot of leaps, and FCP will only look nicer with the recent buy ups that Apple is making, plus that new 23" high resolution screen. i have a feeling they might acquire a few more companies before they slow down. i read somewhere last fall when most all computer makers were having bad financial times about Apples free cash. seems theuir pile of cash just sitting in the bank was many times that of IBM or any other computer maker. since everyone was hurting fromt he bad economic times (coupled with 9-11 fallout) it was a perfect time for Apple to pick up some technology. that was when the rumors were flying about Apple buying up SGI too.... I'm sure a lot of people will never ditch Avid, but FCP is making a lot of progress and for *most* users is totally valid for the project they are doing. with the recent push for it i can only see it getting better anyway, and competition just makes better products for the consumer in the end (till MS gets in the game).

    anyway, the choice of editing applications, in many cases, is personal taste.... not unlike the ongoing war over Adobe or Quark for a layout application. though in that case i think Quark is dropping the ball on the Apple front by stalling their OS X ready version. Adobe has theirs, and it seems a lot of Quark Express diehards are taking it for a spin for that reason alone.

  34. Re:Very overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel hardware is typically priced 50% or 100% over comparable (and often superior) AMD hardware. The "emperor has no clothes" in this, as Intel has managed to bamboozle a large number of computer users over the years by making them believe that a microcomputer's clock speed is more important than a microcomputer's performance. A pretty poor business model, and one day it will collapse rather quickly.

  35. I've done it already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've used Final Cut Pro and the Film Logic plug-in to edit my 35mm feature "The Rules of Attraction" to great success. We actually used FCP 2.02 for stability reasons, since 3.0 was in beta form last year when we began. From the looks of Cinema Tools, I'd say it's just Film Logic repackaged -- perhaps with a spiffy new interface.

  36. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, which is why I have used and preferred AMD-based PC's for years. As do many... so much for the validity of the term "Wintel" sometimes used for PC's.

    But, hey, Intel happens to have Blue Man Group doing commercials, so they are better, right?

    1. Re:Yes by KillerKane · · Score: 1

      Blue Man Group uses apples. They only hawk for Intel.

      There was quite a stink about that recently.

      --
      There is a thin line between genius and insanity. I have erased that line. -- Oscar Levant
  37. Pay more, get less with Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could build an overclocked Athlon XP box for $600 and use free software to do the same job

    So, you end up paying less than 1/4 as much and you get a much more useful system besides.

    1. Re:Pay more, get less with Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except FCP is not available for windows. And quicktime isn't avaiable for Linux. Maybe they should be, but its just not the case.

  38. Re:Cool by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Funny
    After all, software is nothing more than data.

    Yeah! And why do these damn programmers get paid so much anyway? It's just typing, for chrissakes!

  39. Re:$4000 CHEAP! (think again) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Uh, I have to think you're out of your mind. If you're doing a 24fps film project you're going to need to be 100% you have a system that can track and play frames accurately. Editing film on a computer for eventual conforming back on film is a complicated process that involves 3:2 pulldown, maintaining audio sync, tracking keycode #s, duplicate frame usage, legal optical effects, etc. If any of these things are off, even by a little bit, you can be totally screwed as you will be physically slicing your film's negative to match what's edited on the computer. One mess-up means you're fucked.

    I'd like to know what free software does that. I've looked, believe me. The closest I can find is Broadcast 2000, but it's still nowhere close for a film project.

    If you're interestested in some of the issues involved w/picture & sound editing, see this site and especially this article

  40. Re:OT: Are there any decent open source video tool by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2

    Why isn't making videos of your kids for your grandparents worth a $800 used refurbed iMac running iMovie?

  41. Re:OT: Are there any decent open source video tool by bear_phillips · · Score: 1

    Because I need that $800 to pay for daycare.

    --
    http://www.windmeadow.com/
  42. Absolutely marvelous! by Erchamion · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Suppose you are a student, or in education; you can get FCP 3 for a mere $300 and the Cinema tools for the same. That's $600 for a LOT of power. It is absolutely marvelous that apple values students enough to offer so much for so little, not even Micro$oft has such discounts as Apple when it comes to giving the ability to learn important software ($1,400 wow!). This is further demonstrated by their student developer plan. I'm glad someone thinks we're important.

    1. Re:Absolutely marvelous! by batobin · · Score: 2

      Before you decide to love Apple too much, realize that at heart, the student discounts really are just a way to get the next generation of professionals to use their software.

      Sure, Apple does discount more than Microsoft. But remember, that just means they have a different business plan, and put their efforts in the future, not the present.

      This is the same as when countries must find a balance between investing in consumer goods and capital goods. Money spent on consumer goods = a nice today. Money spent on capital goods = a nicer tomorrow.

    2. Re:Absolutely marvelous! by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      What happened to Artificial cheese? Server down?

    3. Re:Absolutely marvelous! by batobin · · Score: 1

      Hey man. You have no idea how cool it is to hear someone asking about the site. It's been a long time since I've talked about it.

      Basically, running the site just got to be a hassle. I had to deal with advertisers to keep my server running, and web advertising isn't doing so hot these days.

      Ever since I stopped posting I've been meaning to re-visit the site and fix it up. I get free hosting these days, mostly because I run my own web hosting company (www.tobinhosting.com). The site might be a nice way for me to voice my opinion whenever the urge overtakes me.

      Anyway, that's what happened. If you liked the site, I'm sorry it's currently dead. If you didn't like the site, well, screw you too. :)

    4. Re:Absolutely marvelous! by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      FYI, I thought the site was cool. :)

    5. Re:Absolutely marvelous! by batobin · · Score: 1

      Haha. Thanks.

      I think the part I miss most was the quotes contest. *sniff* *sniff*. Those were the good old days.

  43. =minimum required install by jcsehak · · Score: 2

    10 mb is probably just the minimum install. I'll bet doing a complete install gives you hundreds of mb of options. I'd also be willing to bet they include some cool extra movies and stuff.

    --

    c-hack.com |
  44. Re:haha the film industry is gonna laugh at this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr THX is *already* using it.... jackass

  45. no, actually *you're* off base. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Yes, contracts are done flat-rate. But you need to put down the crack pipe if you think that rate is the single deciding factor, or even the largest factor.

    First factor is the editor. Bar none, the job will go to top-notch talent. We fly out to LA just to get the best color correction people, even for a 3 hour transfer.

    Second, and closely linked is the gear: good talent won't stay that far behind the technology curve. And for good reason: who will stay at the console waiting for your consumer-grade machines to render an effect 20 times slower than the pro job? No one, not even the clients.

    Amazingly, third actually is the cost, just ahead of who owes who a blowjob in the industry.

    Now back to gear, let's look seriously at what your 'G4 with FCP' will look like. You'll still need a terabyte or so of diskspace for video storage, so buy a NetApp or build your own disk array. You'll need some serious digitize cards to pull in video in realtime. You'll need production grade monitors to get good color, otherwise you'll spend days in transfer doing what you could have done in off-line. You'll need edit decks, most enjoy DigiBetas, but in your 'low-cost' example, 3/4"'s could suffice - you'll just be contracting to dub houses later. You'll want some effects boards to test concepts in semi-realtime; I suppose you could build a beowulf cluster to do that, and then write your own software....

    Each of these adds up in time spent there, or time spent in finish, which, I might add, costs 10 times off-line in hourly costs. So when you say:

    But quality only matters when you go to do the final edit. The vast majority of the work is done in the offline, and if you can cut costs there, you're doing it right.
    I point out that quality matters all the way through the process, or you'll pay for it all in the final edit. And the resulting cost will keep your clients from coming back. You don't know what you're talking about: edit shops like you describe open all the time, and they invariably go out of business.
  46. The end of Blue Man Group by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will come when Paramount sues them for ripping off Star Trek's Bolians.

    Great idea those guys had: "Let's do Star Trek Bolians as a sort of musical Mumenchantz"

  47. Listen, you presumtuous little fuck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...some of us really do need this stuff, in the same way some people needed Quark back in the 80s. So unitl you've won a couple of awards at Sundance and Cannes, and have mortaged your house to pay for time on an Avid, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

    1. Re:Listen, you presumtuous little fuck... by tetro · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. Some people totally suffer as a result of not having cutting edge software. There's freeware, open sourced products out there, but that just isn't enough. People are dying my friends. They really need the latest copies of Photoshop and Premiere. Do you really want children to die because of fatcat companies? Besides, everyone steals. If you notice, everyone who's won something at Sundance and Cannes has used stolen cameras and editing equipment.

      --
      .smell my feet.
  48. Re:Cool by tetro · · Score: 1

    Anonymous Coward's got a point. All programmers ever do is steal code from each other, call it open source, and look at porn all day long.

    --
    .smell my feet.
  49. Re:OT: Are there any decent open source video tool by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

    Okay, fair enough.

  50. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You would not have bought the hardware hadn't there been software you wanted to run on it. Most people don't buy computers for the sake of having computers, they buy them to get a job done.

  51. VirtualDub, Stupid! by Snover · · Score: 1

    VirtualDub. Where have you been living? The "real world"? Yeesh.

    --

    [insert witty comment here]
  52. Give Apple credit ... by daviddennis · · Score: 2

    Macromedia dumped the product when the development team missed too many deadlines, so Apple picked it up, presumably for a song.

    Macromedia seems like a pretty stupid company now, no?

    I hope the development folks are well-compensated; they've earned it.

    D