This is actually a major upgrade in Final Cut Pro and the other applications. There is multi-camera support, which is one of the most-requested features from FCP users. There is (finally!) support in FCP for that cool camera Steve was waving around at the keynote in January. There is a new audio editing application that looks like it's the answer to many people's prayers.
I suppose if news for nerds is just news for Linux kernel developers, you might have a point that this shouldn't be covered. But there's an Apple section on this site, and this happens to be major news to those Mac users, such as myself, who are heavily involved in the world of content creation.
You shouldn't feel an obligation to click on and read a story because it's there. Understand that there are people for whom this is a genuinely big deal, and go on to the next story.
I can assume you have Flash or can get it, in which case I can write my program under the Flash pseudo-platform, and assume that, except in some exceptional circumstances, it will be compatible with the overwhelming majority of computers available today.
Or I can hand you a Windows executable. You sound like a security-oriented guy, so the odds are that you won't run it at all, even if you're running Windows.
With Flash operating under MacOS, Windows, Linux and a number of other platforms, I really don't see any reason not to assume that you either have Flash or can get it easily. If you refuse to run Flash, you're going to refuse even harder to run my executable.
I checked out a few results of your search. Apparently there's a remote exploit, and the solution is to get the latest version of Flash, which I already have. But there is not something that attacks your computer and then goes out on your network and attacks all the computers around you, or emails spam to 100,000 of your closest friends or anything like that. It seems pretty low-risk to me, definitely compared to the odds of having someone run my executable.
I did have some qualms about recommending it thanks to the rather novel menuing system. I selected the wrong option myself, so you're surely not alone.
But the Interior Features section is really a pretty nice idea and well executed.
Well, let me try another interesting use of Flash:
Unfortunately, this one once again requires pop-up windows (what is it about these automaker sites and pop-ups?), and I have to give you a pretty weird path to get to the good stuff:
Click on the "iPod Demo", and sit through the five-odd screens of information. Then click on the "Plug in and Go" option. The simulation of the iPod using the steering wheel controls is really pretty cool.
I could have sworn there was a firewall in previous releases of XP, they just tightened up the rules a bit and confused the heck out of everybody.
More than anything, XP SP 2 was designed to relieve a huge embarrassment to Microsoft, the security issues. MacOS X has security issues fixed at no charge through software update, so it's really no different.
If early accounts are any indication, Tiger will have significantly improved speed yet again. My ancient 400mhz PowerBook G4 is already faster under Panther than it's ever been and I'm looking forward to further improvements. In the same time period, MS has gone from 2000 to XP, and enormous increases in bloat and dramatic reductions in performance have been the result.
Spotlight is a feature Microsoft was trying to create in Longhorn, and it looks like their version might be cut from the Longhorn release so MS can make its deadline. Again, this is clearly something both Apple and Microsoft were planning to charge for.
Finally, features have been added to Tiger that will allow programmers to substantially speed up their processing of video, which will help applications such as Final Cut Pro. It's pretty cool to see them in the OS so that third-party programmers can use them, not just FCP. So even though buying Tiger + FCP is more expensive than getting FCP alone, I'm confident that these changes will improve third-party software to the extent that it's worthwhile.
So in conclusion I certainly don't think Tiger is in any way comparable to SP2. It's nice that something's free, but it doesn't have the comprehensiveness, new features or speed increases Tiger brings to the table.
Final Cut makes it easier to fine-tune things than iMovie, so I much prefer it. You'll probably prefer it too when you give it more of a hearing.
But bear in mind that any software with a 1000 page manual requires some reading and learning time. I'd recommend that you look at the Final Cut Express Visual QuickStart guide - the guides are pretty good and make it easy for you to dive in and get the information you need. They're also cheap, which helps.
As I remember, the book, movie and radio series were all wildly inconsistent with each other, and that's part of the charm. You can repurpose the basic idea and characters into multiple media and it doesn't get stale because the words are different, the characters are different, and the plot shifts.
So I would give this a chance, as it is, before condemning it.
Of course if you want to condemn it, you can always count on the capalert guy to do it for you, but that seems a little narrow-minded to me.
I'm no Flash advocate, but this is a site done all in Flash that has some very cool features. Unfortunately, they are buried in a front end that I don't particularly care for, and I know you won't like at all.
To see the example of Flash where it really added value, click on the models menu and select one of the models. Then pick interior features and there's a very nice thing where you can click on aspects of the interior and read about each feature. You could do this in DHTML as well as Flash but it would be a browser compatibility nightmare.
Of course the lack of any way to link within the content so I could show you what I like directly is a major bummer and a huge disadvantage of the all-Flash approach...
Before FCP version 4, most effects required rendering. Rendering is the name for the complex calculations that make effects happen.
FCP version 4 essentially did simplified versions of these calculations that, thanks to FCP technology and the improvement of processor speeds that has been continuously improved, provided a real-time experience. Quality wasn't top drawer, but it gave you an immediate impression of how things would look.
This was possible on some effects, but not on others. A lot of special tweaking was needed to do this, so that's only understandable. The upshot, though, is that you need to render if you use effects that are not bold in the effects tab. It's pretty obvious when this happens - there is a bright red bar above the offending effects, and when you play it it will say rendering is needed.
Most likely you are using some combination of real-time effects that are collectively too much for your processor to handle. The solution is to ignore the real-time mechanism and render them. You do this by selecting "Render All" from the Sequence menu. Once you have rendered the sequence, you should be able to see things just fine. Remember, a tiny amount of experimentation can create a rendering nightmare for the software if you don't understand how it works and what you're asking it to do.
I do both. What I find, oddly enough, is that I read the online version so differently from the print version that I get entirely different experiences from each, even though the content itself is identical.
The main reason is that I can take the print version where my computer isn't, so I can have a longer-term experience and read more articles. Also, the large paper format gives me more articles to read through headlines, instead of browsing through the sections I know I'm interested in.
I've run Final Cut Pro on similar hardware and it works just fine for me. That's fast enough for the first level of their real time rendering, so you get dissolves and the like instantly.
What sort of problems are you having with it? Perhaps I can be of help.
How do you like the HDR-FX1? I'm thinking of getting one but will hold off until after NAB. You're fortunate that you have FCE because Final Cut Pro has not yet been updated for HDV support. It will be at NAB, of course, but I'll have to get the upgrade (in the $499 range again, no doubt) while you can just upgrade to the latest FCE for $100.
Well, I have my G5/2ghz dual processor and two other Macs, a G4/450 dual processor and a G3/266 system. I somehow don't think they would make a lot of difference in Xgrid. I'm not sure if my G3/266 could even run it:-(.
So it's time for a new G5 when the new ones come out. Then I suppose xgrid would be useful with the two G5s. But, sadly, not until then.
Apple Motion and Apple Final Cut Pro always can use more hardware thrown at them. I'm working on a long form project where quad processors would really help annoying multiple hour rendering times on FCP.
The real-time rendering really helps with most things, but it still doesn't work for layering video at different sizes, exactly what I'm doing:-(.
(I know the original poster made a reply already, but I wanted to point out that he's far from the only person who can use serious power).
If a reasonably popular journal costs $100 or more a year for a subscription, why would it need to charge fees of any kind? Why wouldn't there be plenty of money around to even pay authors for their work?
It seems to be saying that Windows includes everything but Linux doesn't.
But I can get a Linux distribution that has mySQL and PHP and I can do everything with it that I could do with Windows and ASP -- and I'd have to buy the expensive version of Windows and a pricey SQL Server license to do it.
So I don't get it. Perhaps someone can explain what he actually means.
I don't want to look like too much of an Apple apologist, since I happen to agree with you.
That being said, it was a well-known fact that Tiger was coming, and if I had been thinking of buying Apple gear, I probably would have simply held off until Tiger's introduction. (This happens to be an easy decision in my case since NAB is coming and with it new PowerMac models).
When you know what Apple's policies are - and you pretty much do - you should use what you know to time your purchases whenever possible.
I think most people would probably just use a DVI extension cable and get their USB and FireWire from elsewhere. Otherwise you'd need an extension to Apple's cable which would probably be pretty expensive.
Most of my peripherals are external hard drives which (obviously) don't need to be in the same room and in fact should be banished in this scenerio thanks to their own noise problems.
If you want a silent computer, you don't want to be in the same room as the optical drive, either:-).
But of course my keyboard and mouse do need to be extended somehow.
Sounds like a good idea to use Bluetooth if it's not bad at getting through walls. I've noticed that in my house AirPort signals have a pretty hard time getting through walls, although oddly enough they will get through the ceiling to the second floor very easily. Strange.
Attracting top-quality people requires good pay, benefits and all that stuff.
Spreading your costs over a few million units instead of a few hundred million units means you have to charge more for each individual unit if costs are anywhere close.
As MacOS X has matured, the upgrades have gotten rarer. If my memory serves, this is the first one in about 18 months. Previous ones were almost exactly a year apart.
I don't have any problem paying as long as I get a high-quality product in return, and I have always felt well-treated by Steve's minions.
It might just be getting a bit older and a bit richer and not really caring that much about dropping $129. I can certainly understand the resentments of people who don't have the bucks to do it... but at the same time people at Apple still need to be paid to develop the good stuff, and I'm happy to support them.
You are correct. Tragically, all I can afford is the 23" previous generation Cinema Display I presently own:-(.
However, I've used Apple Motion on it, and a more brutal test of a graphics card has yet to be invented. I still haven't noticed much in the way of noise.
When I installed my Nvidia 6800 Ultra DDL card, which is this sprawling monster that takes over two slots, I noticed that you have a point. The fan ventilates into the case and so the case fans are still in charge of getting the air out.
Are there any drawbacks with my own proposed solution to run some long keyboard/monitor cables and put the computer in another room? With his obsessiveness, I think that's the only thing with a fighting chance of working. Would long cable runs cause a problem?
I'm actually a bit puzzled by this story. The author must have hypersensitive ears.
I'm a dual G5 owner, admittedly of the previous 2.0ghz dual processor model, and I happen to own a display card capable of driving the 30" display.
It's quiet as a mouse unless I'm using the two CPUs at full speed and even then it's not that bad. It's actually my external hard drives that make most of the noise in my system.
Of course if he really needs a way to deal with this problem, I recommend simply taking a high-quality stereo system and hooking it up to iTunes or an iPod. Crank it up and you won't notice any computer noise whatsoever.
Personally, I strongly recommend that solution.
If that's not possible - for instance, if he's doing professional sound recording and needs to listen to only what he's working on, I would just get some really long DVI cables and put the computer in the closet or a room next door.
As for switching to Windows, well, I'm sorry, that's the last thing I'd do in the world, particularly if his work is multimedia design/production.
I read the review, and I looked at the trailer, and the thought crossed my mind that the reviewer might be just a shade too aware of his subject matter. I mean, he sounded like someone who had memorized vast swathes of the books, making him eminently qualified to determine whether the movie was a faithful adoption or not.
But perhaps too close to the subject matter to determine whether the Hitchhikers movie would be, well, a good movie. I think his negative feelings concerning the script may have swamped his judgment.
So remember that the book and TV series were not word for word copies of the radio scripts, and somehow they found their own lives. Hopefully the movie will as well.
So let's withhold judgement until we have a few more reviews under our belts. It might not be a masterpiece, but if we don't overanalyze it like this guy did, it might be fun even if it's imperfect.
Just like human life. And, for that matter, Douglas Adams.
All they want to do is learn more about me so they can sell me stuff.
Maybe I was born with an insufficient paranoia gene, but I just don't see much wrong with this, especially compared to the greater good they provide with their services.
Could you describe the things Google has done that are not "nice"?
I haven't seen any Google products that aren't pretty darn impressive, and free for use by the public.
Yes, they make their money off advertising, and that's great. It gives us free toys and advertisers get exposure, just like old-fashioned over the air TV.
What's wrong with making money by providing great services? If they lose money, they can't provide the services anymore:-(.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have the video card needed to run it, it's a must-see.
:-(.
It's the coolest motion graphics application ever. I have it and using it is truly a joy.
Pre-G5 PowerMacs don't have the video card needed to run it unless it was purchased as a (horribly expensive) option. You have been warned
D
This is actually a major upgrade in Final Cut Pro and the other applications. There is multi-camera support, which is one of the most-requested features from FCP users. There is (finally!) support in FCP for that cool camera Steve was waving around at the keynote in January. There is a new audio editing application that looks like it's the answer to many people's prayers.
I suppose if news for nerds is just news for Linux kernel developers, you might have a point that this shouldn't be covered. But there's an Apple section on this site, and this happens to be major news to those Mac users, such as myself, who are heavily involved in the world of content creation.
You shouldn't feel an obligation to click on and read a story because it's there. Understand that there are people for whom this is a genuinely big deal, and go on to the next story.
Nothing wrong with that.
D
Well, according to you, I have a choice.
I can assume you have Flash or can get it, in which case I can write my program under the Flash pseudo-platform, and assume that, except in some exceptional circumstances, it will be compatible with the overwhelming majority of computers available today.
Or I can hand you a Windows executable. You sound like a security-oriented guy, so the odds are that you won't run it at all, even if you're running Windows.
With Flash operating under MacOS, Windows, Linux and a number of other platforms, I really don't see any reason not to assume that you either have Flash or can get it easily. If you refuse to run Flash, you're going to refuse even harder to run my executable.
I checked out a few results of your search. Apparently there's a remote exploit, and the solution is to get the latest version of Flash, which I already have. But there is not something that attacks your computer and then goes out on your network and attacks all the computers around you, or emails spam to 100,000 of your closest friends or anything like that. It seems pretty low-risk to me, definitely compared to the odds of having someone run my executable.
D
I did have some qualms about recommending it thanks to the rather novel menuing system. I selected the wrong option myself, so you're surely not alone.
e s/ iPod/index.jsp
But the Interior Features section is really a pretty nice idea and well executed.
Well, let me try another interesting use of Flash:
http://www.mbusa.com/main/container.jsp?/featur
Unfortunately, this one once again requires pop-up windows (what is it about these automaker sites and pop-ups?), and I have to give you a pretty weird path to get to the good stuff:
Click on the "iPod Demo", and sit through the five-odd screens of information. Then click on the "Plug in and Go" option. The simulation of the iPod using the steering wheel controls is really pretty cool.
Hope that's of interest.
D
Two pretty good reasons: Because I can run it on my Mac, and because I've never seen a Flash virus.
D
I could have sworn there was a firewall in previous releases of XP, they just tightened up the rules a bit and confused the heck out of everybody.
More than anything, XP SP 2 was designed to relieve a huge embarrassment to Microsoft, the security issues. MacOS X has security issues fixed at no charge through software update, so it's really no different.
If early accounts are any indication, Tiger will have significantly improved speed yet again. My ancient 400mhz PowerBook G4 is already faster under Panther than it's ever been and I'm looking forward to further improvements. In the same time period, MS has gone from 2000 to XP, and enormous increases in bloat and dramatic reductions in performance have been the result.
Spotlight is a feature Microsoft was trying to create in Longhorn, and it looks like their version might be cut from the Longhorn release so MS can make its deadline. Again, this is clearly something both Apple and Microsoft were planning to charge for.
Finally, features have been added to Tiger that will allow programmers to substantially speed up their processing of video, which will help applications such as Final Cut Pro. It's pretty cool to see them in the OS so that third-party programmers can use them, not just FCP. So even though buying Tiger + FCP is more expensive than getting FCP alone, I'm confident that these changes will improve third-party software to the extent that it's worthwhile.
So in conclusion I certainly don't think Tiger is in any way comparable to SP2. It's nice that something's free, but it doesn't have the comprehensiveness, new features or speed increases Tiger brings to the table.
D
Final Cut makes it easier to fine-tune things than iMovie, so I much prefer it. You'll probably prefer it too when you give it more of a hearing.
But bear in mind that any software with a 1000 page manual requires some reading and learning time. I'd recommend that you look at the Final Cut Express Visual QuickStart guide - the guides are pretty good and make it easy for you to dive in and get the information you need. They're also cheap, which helps.
Hope that helps.
D
As I remember, the book, movie and radio series were all wildly inconsistent with each other, and that's part of the charm. You can repurpose the basic idea and characters into multiple media and it doesn't get stale because the words are different, the characters are different, and the plot shifts.
So I would give this a chance, as it is, before condemning it.
Of course if you want to condemn it, you can always count on the capalert guy to do it for you, but that seems a little narrow-minded to me.
D
I'm no Flash advocate, but this is a site done all in Flash that has some very cool features. Unfortunately, they are buried in a front end that I don't particularly care for, and I know you won't like at all.
...
Mini USA Web Site.
To see the example of Flash where it really added value, click on the models menu and select one of the models. Then pick interior features and there's a very nice thing where you can click on aspects of the interior and read about each feature. You could do this in DHTML as well as Flash but it would be a browser compatibility nightmare.
Of course the lack of any way to link within the content so I could show you what I like directly is a major bummer and a huge disadvantage of the all-Flash approach
D
I now work for the Department of Chemistry of a major university that I'd better not name just yet.
When a student's brandishing a notebook, there's about a 90% chance it's an Apple one.
The professor I'm working with has a Tablet PC but uses Linux on the desktop.
When I attended meetings of content creators, there's about a 70% Mac market share.
So things are actually pretty good, at least where I work.
D
Before FCP version 4, most effects required rendering. Rendering is the name for the complex calculations that make effects happen.
FCP version 4 essentially did simplified versions of these calculations that, thanks to FCP technology and the improvement of processor speeds that has been continuously improved, provided a real-time experience. Quality wasn't top drawer, but it gave you an immediate impression of how things would look.
This was possible on some effects, but not on others. A lot of special tweaking was needed to do this, so that's only understandable. The upshot, though, is that you need to render if you use effects that are not bold in the effects tab. It's pretty obvious when this happens - there is a bright red bar above the offending effects, and when you play it it will say rendering is needed.
Most likely you are using some combination of real-time effects that are collectively too much for your processor to handle. The solution is to ignore the real-time mechanism and render them. You do this by selecting "Render All" from the Sequence menu. Once you have rendered the sequence, you should be able to see things just fine. Remember, a tiny amount of experimentation can create a rendering nightmare for the software if you don't understand how it works and what you're asking it to do.
Did that help?
D
I do both. What I find, oddly enough, is that I read the online version so differently from the print version that I get entirely different experiences from each, even though the content itself is identical.
The main reason is that I can take the print version where my computer isn't, so I can have a longer-term experience and read more articles. Also, the large paper format gives me more articles to read through headlines, instead of browsing through the sections I know I'm interested in.
D
I've run Final Cut Pro on similar hardware and it works just fine for me. That's fast enough for the first level of their real time rendering, so you get dissolves and the like instantly.
What sort of problems are you having with it? Perhaps I can be of help.
How do you like the HDR-FX1? I'm thinking of getting one but will hold off until after NAB. You're fortunate that you have FCE because Final Cut Pro has not yet been updated for HDV support. It will be at NAB, of course, but I'll have to get the upgrade (in the $499 range again, no doubt) while you can just upgrade to the latest FCE for $100.
D
Well, I have my G5/2ghz dual processor and two other Macs, a G4/450 dual processor and a G3/266 system. I somehow don't think they would make a lot of difference in Xgrid. I'm not sure if my G3/266 could even run it :-(.
So it's time for a new G5 when the new ones come out. Then I suppose xgrid would be useful with the two G5s. But, sadly, not until then.
D
Apple Motion and Apple Final Cut Pro always can use more hardware thrown at them. I'm working on a long form project where quad processors would really help annoying multiple hour rendering times on FCP.
:-(.
The real-time rendering really helps with most things, but it still doesn't work for layering video at different sizes, exactly what I'm doing
(I know the original poster made a reply already, but I wanted to point out that he's far from the only person who can use serious power).
D
If a reasonably popular journal costs $100 or more a year for a subscription, why would it need to charge fees of any kind? Why wouldn't there be plenty of money around to even pay authors for their work?
In other words, where does the money go?
D
It seems to be saying that Windows includes everything but Linux doesn't.
But I can get a Linux distribution that has mySQL and PHP and I can do everything with it that I could do with Windows and ASP -- and I'd have to buy the expensive version of Windows and a pricey SQL Server license to do it.
So I don't get it. Perhaps someone can explain what he actually means.
D
I don't want to look like too much of an Apple apologist, since I happen to agree with you.
That being said, it was a well-known fact that Tiger was coming, and if I had been thinking of buying Apple gear, I probably would have simply held off until Tiger's introduction. (This happens to be an easy decision in my case since NAB is coming and with it new PowerMac models).
When you know what Apple's policies are - and you pretty much do - you should use what you know to time your purchases whenever possible.
D
I think most people would probably just use a DVI extension cable and get their USB and FireWire from elsewhere. Otherwise you'd need an extension to Apple's cable which would probably be pretty expensive.
:-).
Most of my peripherals are external hard drives which (obviously) don't need to be in the same room and in fact should be banished in this scenerio thanks to their own noise problems.
If you want a silent computer, you don't want to be in the same room as the optical drive, either
But of course my keyboard and mouse do need to be extended somehow.
Sounds like a good idea to use Bluetooth if it's not bad at getting through walls. I've noticed that in my house AirPort signals have a pretty hard time getting through walls, although oddly enough they will get through the ceiling to the second floor very easily. Strange.
D
Innovation requires top-quality people.
... but at the same time people at Apple still need to be paid to develop the good stuff, and I'm happy to support them.
Attracting top-quality people requires good pay, benefits and all that stuff.
Spreading your costs over a few million units instead of a few hundred million units means you have to charge more for each individual unit if costs are anywhere close.
As MacOS X has matured, the upgrades have gotten rarer. If my memory serves, this is the first one in about 18 months. Previous ones were almost exactly a year apart.
I don't have any problem paying as long as I get a high-quality product in return, and I have always felt well-treated by Steve's minions.
It might just be getting a bit older and a bit richer and not really caring that much about dropping $129. I can certainly understand the resentments of people who don't have the bucks to do it
D
You are correct. Tragically, all I can afford is the 23" previous generation Cinema Display I presently own :-(.
However, I've used Apple Motion on it, and a more brutal test of a graphics card has yet to be invented. I still haven't noticed much in the way of noise.
When I installed my Nvidia 6800 Ultra DDL card, which is this sprawling monster that takes over two slots, I noticed that you have a point. The fan ventilates into the case and so the case fans are still in charge of getting the air out.
Are there any drawbacks with my own proposed solution to run some long keyboard/monitor cables and put the computer in another room? With his obsessiveness, I think that's the only thing with a fighting chance of working. Would long cable runs cause a problem?
D
I'm actually a bit puzzled by this story. The author must have hypersensitive ears.
I'm a dual G5 owner, admittedly of the previous 2.0ghz dual processor model, and I happen to own a display card capable of driving the 30" display.
It's quiet as a mouse unless I'm using the two CPUs at full speed and even then it's not that bad. It's actually my external hard drives that make most of the noise in my system.
Of course if he really needs a way to deal with this problem, I recommend simply taking a high-quality stereo system and hooking it up to iTunes or an iPod. Crank it up and you won't notice any computer noise whatsoever.
Personally, I strongly recommend that solution.
If that's not possible - for instance, if he's doing professional sound recording and needs to listen to only what he's working on, I would just get some really long DVI cables and put the computer in the closet or a room next door.
As for switching to Windows, well, I'm sorry, that's the last thing I'd do in the world, particularly if his work is multimedia design/production.
D
I read the review, and I looked at the trailer, and the thought crossed my mind that the reviewer might be just a shade too aware of his subject matter. I mean, he sounded like someone who had memorized vast swathes of the books, making him eminently qualified to determine whether the movie was a faithful adoption or not.
But perhaps too close to the subject matter to determine whether the Hitchhikers movie would be, well, a good movie. I think his negative feelings concerning the script may have swamped his judgment.
So remember that the book and TV series were not word for word copies of the radio scripts, and somehow they found their own lives. Hopefully the movie will as well.
So let's withhold judgement until we have a few more reviews under our belts. It might not be a masterpiece, but if we don't overanalyze it like this guy did, it might be fun even if it's imperfect.
Just like human life. And, for that matter, Douglas Adams.
D
All they want to do is learn more about me so they can sell me stuff.
Maybe I was born with an insufficient paranoia gene, but I just don't see much wrong with this, especially compared to the greater good they provide with their services.
D
Could you describe the things Google has done that are not "nice"?
:-(.
I haven't seen any Google products that aren't pretty darn impressive, and free for use by the public.
Yes, they make their money off advertising, and that's great. It gives us free toys and advertisers get exposure, just like old-fashioned over the air TV.
What's wrong with making money by providing great services? If they lose money, they can't provide the services anymore
D