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."
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.
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?
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
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?
Hackers? Mating? Wouldn't this just be a lot of stories about late nights looking at Pr0n?
24 fps high density video ...?
That's a new one on me. I think you meant "high-definition (HD) video."
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
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...
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?
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.