or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Report says dramatic, ambitious Final Cut Pro update coming in spring 2011
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Report says dramatic, ambitious Final Cut Pro update coming in spring 2011

post #1 of 49
Thread Starter 
Apple will release a "spectacular" update to its Final Cut Pro professional video editing application this spring, a new report claims.

As reported by TechCrunch, a long-overdue update to the software will represent the biggest overhaul to Final Cut Pro since the original version was created over 10 years ago when it is released this spring. The Final Cut Suite saw its last major upgrade in July 2009 when Apple released Final Cut Pro 7.

According to people familiar with the matter, a "small group of video editors" visited the Apple campus to preview the new version of the software and provide "pro user feedback." Once source claimed the new release will include "low level architectural changes" as well as a "complete redesign of the user interface." The report also notes that the upgrade will most likely jump to 64-bit as well since users have been clamoring for it.

People who have previewed the unreleased software called the changes "dramatic and ambitious" with a pro-oriented focus, which should allay concerns that Apple had neglected Final Cut Pro in favor of its consumer video applications, namely iMovie.

The report's source claims that Apple plans to release the new product in spring 2011, possibly coinciding with the National Association of Broadcasters conference in April.

Last May, AppleInsider reported that Apple's Final Cut Studio suite was being retooled to better meet the needs of the company's mainstream base of prosumers and advanced home users. However, after Final Cut Pro users expressed concern over the prospect, Apple issued an official statement claiming that "the next version of Final Cut Pro will be awesome and [Apple's] pro customers are going to love it."

In September 2010, reports emerged that the next version of Final Cut Studio had been delayed until 2011 after Apple ran into some snags on the project. According to the report, differences of opinion between the teams working on Shake and Motion regarding an ideal unified interface for the suite "hamstrung" part of the project, causing several features to be deferred to a 2013 version of the software.

A "structural issue" also reportedly caused problems for Apple, especially since the company had reportedly diverted several key engineers to its iOS mobile operating system team.

Last month, reports surfaced that Apple plans to release the video production suite in March or early April of this year.

"Two versions are already running at beta level, one for Snow Leopard, and one for Lion," said one report. "Some new features will only be available on Lion's version, due to the changes made on QuickTime layer."
post #2 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


A "structural issue" also reportedly caused problems for Apple, especially since the company had reportedly diverted several key engineers to its iOS mobile operating system team.

It's nice to see some pro level projects (finally) get some attention, but it would be nice if they didn't have to play second fiddle to iOS needs (read: get enough talent for both).
post #3 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayside View Post

It's nice to see some pro level projects (finally) get some attention [...] to iOS needs (read: get enough talent for both).


Nah, the idea of one engineer handling both pro and consumer version is so that the consumer can achieve what pro can do and in turn, the pro (users) can do their job with the simplest route. One person knowledge benefitting both markets. That's what Apple call 'engineering'
post #4 of 49
Please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie
post #5 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

1) "low level architectural changes" as well as a "complete redesign of the user interface."
2) "dramatic and ambitious" with a pro-oriented focus
3) "the next version of Final Cut Pro will be awesome and [Apple's] pro customers are going to love it."

1) Like beautiful music to me. Finally.
2) Like an awesome freaking punk rock concert to me!
3) Like... the funniest official statement I ever heard. haha. Like, "Relax, it'll be awesome!" Very reassuring ;-)

Building up high hopes again for FCP, that I lost the day Apple Motion was released.
post #6 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post

Please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie

*likes*
post #7 of 49
Just when I am looking to make the plunge to buy Final Cut Studio

I personally like the interface it has now. I am by no means a power user in Final Cut but I find it pretty intuitive. I also personally love Motion and find it to be pretty powerful (for my needs). The weakest leak in my opinion is Soundtrack Pro. While I love it, I just do not think it is powerful enough for the mainstream market. If Apple really want to compete with Avid, and Adobe is combine Logic Pro with Soundtrack Pro. Now that would give Adobe and Avid a run for their money!

Just my 2ยข
post #8 of 49
Duh....

It's been obvious for how long now that Apple would come back and try to become the major player with FCP ?

Consumer market took priority and it made them buku bucks. Now back to the smaller segment.
post #9 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

1) Like beautiful music to me. Finally.
2) Like an awesome freaking punk rock concert to me!
3) Like... the funniest official statement I ever heard. haha. Like, "Relax, it'll be awesome!" Very reassuring ;-)

Building up high hopes again for FCP, that I lost the day Apple Motion was released.

I use FCS for editing and experimentation -- mostly for, home movies and some experimentation for friends and my own amusement -- I definitely am not a professional, but sometimes need to go beyond iMovie.

I enjoy using Motion to add 3D effects to 2D images -- and find it to be quite powerful.

I especially like that, unlike FCP, it does real-time rendering.


What is it abut Motion that you dislike -- am I missing something?

TIA,

Dick
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #10 of 49
this is the most exciting news yet! For me
Really been looking forward to this. FCS3 was not so great. If this new update for FCP is as amazing as ppl say it is then it will really strengthen Apple's place in the Pro Post production world as well as pro editor's confidence in Apple.
The thing that I wonder about is what will Apple do with DVD Studio Pro and will they deliver the old rumored Phenomenon (Shake replacement) or will Motion be the kill app
Phillip Gibb

Blogger | Java Programmer | Filmmaker
a journey in Filmmaking and Social Media
[ Digital Business Card | SynapticLight | Twitter ]
Reply
Phillip Gibb

Blogger | Java Programmer | Filmmaker
a journey in Filmmaking and Social Media
[ Digital Business Card | SynapticLight | Twitter ]
Reply
post #11 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

People who have previewed the unreleased software called the changes "dramatic and ambitious" with a pro-oriented focus [...]

Surely said people understood that without full blu-ray integration, support for native DSLR H.264 files, and a vastly improved Motion, the only dramatic event will be the flood of users to Adobe. Or is that not bag-o'-hurt-ious enough for Herr Jobs?
We are all players in a vast multi-player game, studiously avoiding contact with reality. Even those of us who have seen The Matrix.
Reply
We are all players in a vast multi-player game, studiously avoiding contact with reality. Even those of us who have seen The Matrix.
Reply
post #12 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by iEye View Post

Surely said people understood that without full blu-ray integration, support for native DSLR H.264 files, and a vastly improved Motion, the only dramatic event will be the flood of users to Adobe. Or is that not bag-o'-hurt-ious enough for Herr Jobs?

Current FCP runs pretty much all HD formats out there without much issues.
The current FCP runs great with 3th party hardware from AJA, Blackmagic and Matrox.

Lets hope they don't screw up. We don't need another interface. We need 64 bit support.
post #13 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacYeah View Post

pretty much... without much issues...3th party hardware.

Either it is or it isn't. The current FCP isn't. Support of H.264 is a must, and FCP7 can't even begin to cope with that codec. Agreed on not needing a new interface.
We are all players in a vast multi-player game, studiously avoiding contact with reality. Even those of us who have seen The Matrix.
Reply
We are all players in a vast multi-player game, studiously avoiding contact with reality. Even those of us who have seen The Matrix.
Reply
post #14 of 49
I certainaly agree that iMovie's interface is unworthy..

But even though FCP's interface is pretty much along the lines of "pro" edit tools stretching back to the mid 90's that has never made them -good- in my eyes.

The whole format of video editing interfaces are way cumbersome and jumbled in my opinion. I first edited on a Sony 900 ( i think that was the model) and I remember the first avid, matrox and premiere. Awful.

I would love to be amazed cause to draw a parallel they are still like windows ce compared to iOS. I'd go so far as to say I'd like to see a multi iPad front end, though don't get all irate thinking I'm saying dumbed down.
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
post #15 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by K.C. View Post

Duh....

It's been obvious for how long now that Apple would come back and try to become the major player with FCP ?

Consumer market took priority and it made them buku bucks. Now back to the smaller segment.

I agree: Apple got diverted, but it was probably chasing iOS rather than iMovie that got their pro software off-track for the past 3 years or so.

Oh, and "buku"? Perhaps you meant "beaucoup"?
post #16 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikertwin View Post

I agree: Apple got diverted, but it was probably chasing iOS rather than iMovie that got their pro software off-track for the past 3 years or so.

Oh, and "buku"? Perhaps you meant "beaucoup"?

As a user if FCPro from its first ever release I will be interested to see the interface changes. I just hope the learning curve isn't too dramatic I am getting too old to start over !

BTW Buku seems to be one of those 'new' word spellings based on the longer original \ :http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=buku
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #17 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by iEye View Post

Either it is or it isn't. The current FCP isn't. Support of H.264 is a must, and FCP7 can't even begin to cope with that codec. Agreed on not needing a new interface.

Native H.264 support, not this conversion to ProRes stuff. Though ProRes does seem to work well enough, I recently picked up Adobe's Production Premium suite on an educational discount and I prefer being able to drag my AVCHD files right into the timeline. I haven't abandoned FCS completely however and eagerly await the next FCS update.
post #18 of 49
Comprehensive HDSLR and RED R3D support are a must. I don't care what interface changes there are as long as a) the whole JKL editing style remains and b) they succeed in allowing a super-smooth FCP-Motion-FCP-Color-FCP type workflow. Comprehensive hardware acceleration is also a must and its about time we saw the Shake derivative appear. iPhone/Touch/Pad control surface integration surely.

There'll be laughter, there'll be tears but it'll be exciting stuff.
post #19 of 49
I love FCP as is so I'm excited and nervous about this update.

And, yep, I'm in the **PLEASE don't be like iMovie camp- for the love of fucking life!!!**
post #20 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by allmypeople View Post

I love FCP as is so I'm excited and nervous about this update.

And, yep, I'm in the **PLEASE don't be like iMovie camp- for the love of fucking life!!!**

I would hope that Apple would know the difference between a "Pro app" and iMovie.
post #21 of 49
Been a long time comin'.
I'm also with the 'not like imovie' crowd. Please, not like imovie.
Also, native R3D support pretty please!
post #22 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by K.C. View Post

Duh....

It's been obvious for how long now that Apple would come back and try to become the major player with FCP ?

Consumer market took priority and it made them buku bucks. Now back to the smaller segment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post

Please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie please don't be like iMovie

Quote:
Originally Posted by studiomusic View Post

Been a long time comin'.
I'm also with the 'not like imovie' crowd. Please, not like imovie.
Also, native R3D support pretty please!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

I would hope that Apple would know the difference between a "Pro app" and iMovie.

Must be a lot of unsung brilliant creative people here. Amazing how many criticize a product that some of the great directors/studios/etc., are doing so well with it now.

Love to see all your Curriculum Vitae.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/in-action/
post #23 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

Must be a lot of unsung brilliant creative people here. Amazing how many criticize a product that some of the great directors/studios/etc., are doing so well with it now.

Love to see all your Curriculum Vitae.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/in-action/

What we have here are people hoping Apple doesn't make FCP more iMovie-like as opposed to criticizing it as you say. If anything, it can be viewed as a criticism of iMovie.
post #24 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

Must be a lot of unsung brilliant creative people here. Amazing how many criticize a product that some of the great directors/studios/etc., are doing so well with it now.

Love to see all your Curriculum Vitae.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/in-action/

I don't think any of their criticisms or recommendations for the next FCP version were unfair or partisan in nature.

Sure FCP in its current state is a useful and commonly used tool for video editors. That doesn't mean it can't be made better.
post #25 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

What we have here are people hoping Apple doesn't make FCP more iMovie-like as opposed to criticizing it as you say. If anything, it can be viewed as a criticism of iMovie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I don't think any of their criticisms or recommendations for the next FCP version were unfair or partisan in nature.

Sure FCP in its current state is a useful and commonly used tool for video editors. That doesn't mean it can't be made better.

For cripes sake. Just how stupid do you think Apple is that it needs such advice from the likes of the above.

It is obvious that the folks I quoted above have never used FCP and certainly not with the capabilities of such outstanding professionals that are using it now. And there are lots out there.

Amazing that such productions could have been accomplished by such an amateur application as some here seem to describe it.
post #26 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

As a user if FCPro from its first ever release I will be interested to see the interface changes. I just hope the learning curve isn't too dramatic I am getting too old to start over !

When Premiere came out it didn't get much uptake from the pro users, so when R. Ubillos went to Macromedia he designed FC to look more like Avid. As another poster mentioned, pro video editing user interface has remained pretty much stagnant since the 90's. Anyway, the FC tiny button gray non-intuitive Avid-like interface ended up attracting some pro adoption when released however, it seems to have fallen off recently due to various factors such as no 64 bit, Motion/Shake and iMovie faux pas plus some really innovative pro applications released from independent companies. Apple has never really been able to unseat Avid in Hollywood either. I hope they can regain some of the pro loyalty with the new release.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #27 of 49
I don't think Final Cut Studio has been put on the back burner, I think the development team has been working continuously on the new version from the release of FCS '3'. it was always going to take a couple of years to rewrite the entire app (if Premiere's re write is anything to go by)- although some bits had been completely re within for FCP7. the release has also been fundamentally linked to maturing of QTX (64bit) up to the functionality of QT7 (32 bit).

Cant be easy to re develop an application as scalable as FCP and that appeals and supports businesses and markets in Film, Television, Industry, Corporate, Education and Hobbyist / Prosumer. The main issue must have been getting the 64bit version as robust and as feature rich the current FCP, so any new features will be a bonus.

If there is an announcement soon I wouldn't be surprised if the release wasn't be until later in the year. (but who knows?) and that the feature set might be very similar to to what we have now.

Here's what i would love in the new version and think might be coming, of course every Editor / Producer will have a different list.

64 bit and increased available Ram use go without saying.

1. multi processor use when rendering
2. Background Rendering with user controlled number of core use-( as in QMaster)
3. Background Exporting
4. Quicktime X to mature and featured enough to replace QT7 (i'm guessing this is essential / fundamental to the new version.
5. Better and customised metadata handling
6. full integration with Final Cut Server metadata
7. The Interface gets the Logic / Aperture treatment but with customisable arrangement and dynamic windows.
8. QT gets built in Open EXR and other digital cinema codecs built in as standard.
9. Scratch Disk settings that are Project by project aware/based (and that this had a disable button
10. Better Timeline Search functions and media use indicators


-what would be fun but maybe not in this version,
1. Face recognition for video - (like Aperture)
2. Scene framing recognition.
3. Scrubbable clips in the clip bin

-Native editing of long GOP codecs does not worry me- but it's a often requested feature, and equally required by commercial and Prosumer / Consumer markets -this is more of a processing power.
post #28 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

When Premiere came out it didn't get much uptake from the pro users, so when R. Ubillos went to Macromedia he designed FC to look more like Avid. As another poster mentioned, pro video editing user interface has remained pretty much stagnant since the 90's. Anyway, the FC tiny button gray non-intuitive Avid-like interface ended up attracting some pro adoption when released however, it seems to have fallen off recently due to various factors such as no 64 bit, Motion/Shake and iMovie faux pas plus some really innovative pro applications released from independent companies. Apple has never really been able to unseat Avid in Hollywood either. I hope they can regain some of the pro loyalty with the new release.

Yea, I agree. I consider myself a "high level amateur" who did the occasional video for school, friends, etc. but the Final Cut user interface is stuck in 2002. There are symbols that don't have explanations. If you move a file, Final Cut can't keep track of it. Figuring out which exporting settings are best is a pain.
post #29 of 49
The "best" news I'm learning from this (by reading between the lines), is the debate between Motion and Shake engineers. To me, that means Apple may be trying to compete with Flame at the higher end -- AND, tackle the ease of use of Motion.

Shake used to be THE application for compositing for professional movie production -- and a lot of those users are going to Flame. The advantage of Motion, is that you can use real-time experimentation and throw on an expression and "see" what happens. I could imagine, that MOTION, is the top level layer, and that shake is an engine to composite the encapsulated layers -- but how to do that in "real time" -- likely, there is a per-layer rendering technology that Apple is going to use...

The next FCP will likely have "per layer" rendering. So you can turn off a layer after it has rendered, and not have to re-render, though, there would have to be a separate saved cache file for "difference" such as, when the upper layer has an effect on the lower layer. Also, I'm sure that the 64-bit architecture will FINALLY allow for mix-and match codecs as well as bit depths -- so that you don't have to convert the 12bit per channel YUV HDAC down to the 8-bit per channel DV tape you are using or vise vera.

Apple's strategy so far, has been to build the CORE, light-weight engine for the "lower end" and not re-invent the wheel for the upper end. The iOS became the core of the iPad and lots of networking for the Leopard OS. Leopard also got rid of some very large graphics files, to accommodate a more compressed and space savvy mobile OS. I'm pretty sure the confusion and fear of "tackling the hobbyist end", is about a single core for the software and interface so that Apple doesn't have to re-invent the wheel and waste development time making an iMove, Garage Band, Soundtrack, Final Cut, Motion, Shake, and a half dozen other, totally different pieces of software -- I expect that they are going to settle on some core for video that includes real-time OpenCL (throughout), and some way to manage sounds and effects like both Garage Band and Logic -- and ways to non-destructively "pre-render" so that tiny changes don't require a re-render each time.

That takes a LOT OF REAL THOUGHT, about how to encapsulate this AV data -- and it makes sense that it has taken about as long to really update these apps as it did to build the iOS. Steve Jobs doesn't seem out to make the next "lame piece of software" -- and I think that he is really going after making Apple the de facto standard for Video and Audio again. Think of the different Effects as you do adding a Font to your computer -- and that would be like the difference between amateur and Pro -- every app in the Mac and use every font without worrying about how it was designed or rendered.

We've been frustrated by earlier "tweaks" and I think this is because there has not been a lot of time and effort given to updating the different software, because most of the effort has gone to how to engineer a way to design something for video and sound once, and then re-purpose it. The weird and clumsy change to Quicktime X, was a baby step, because Quicktime X really passes most functions to Quicktime 7 -- that makes me think of it as a "management layer" to pass processes off and merely act as a manager of computer resources and codecs.

So, I think that Apple is going to compete with Adobe, not by beating Final Cut Pro, but by going after Flame, and having support for more real-time and hardware acceleration with CPU, GPU or whatever resource is available. Slower machines will pre-render but not have to re-render -- but I'm expecting, either now or after Lion, that Apple is due to re-write expectations again.
post #30 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

For cripes sake. Just how stupid do you think Apple is that it needs such advice from the likes of the above.

It is obvious that the folks I quoted above have never used FCP and certainly not with the capabilities of such outstanding professionals that are using it now. And there are lots out there.

Amazing that such productions could have been accomplished by such an amateur application as some here seem to describe it.

If you read my original quote, I commented that I would hope that Apple would know the difference between a Pro app and iMovie which is to say that I think they do. Additionally, I have FCS 1 and upgraded to FCS 3 when it came out, so yes, I have and continue to use FCP. Don't presume to know as much as you think you know about me based on a few comments.
post #31 of 49
SOT

Creativity has many forms -- baking a cake, for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hwVR...embedded#at=49
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #32 of 49
As long as we are dreaming of what we would like (e.g., Per Project Scratch disks as was mentioned above). I'd really like the following.

Facetime recognition in Video (pretty sure this will make it),
Audio Speech to Text, to at least give us a searchable time-line for what someone says -- 90% accurate would at least be useful. The text, of course, would have time-code tags that link back to the original audio track.
An FX builder that utilized something like Quartz Composer -- but without needing a third party company to do it.
All FX available and scriptable with a QuickTime encapsulator -- for instance, QuickTime would now include Quartz Composer in the Pro version, and this QT file could be dropped into Keynote, and Keynote could see variables -- so you could animate a list of names and graphics without building separate slides. A QT file then becomes any video or audio file, or a "project" in Motion/Shake, or Logic/Garageband. I'd expect that the organization of these QT projects would start looking like a Keynote file -- which is really a zipped project folder, of image and AV assets, and an XML file to describe how they are used and when. Even the previews (like per-project render locations) are low-rez renders of the original files -- and even aliases to other renders or originals in cases where an image or sound is used more than once.

>> So ONE STANDARD file description technique for ALL APPLE SOFTWARE. Apple doesn't compete on file formats like Microsoft. So one standard, much like a Keynote file, and XML descriptor. It also means, third-party developers can easily use any Apple project file or help do things like "compare" different projects and remove duplicates with an alias.

You can change a MODERN keynote file extension to be ".zip" and the uncompress it to a folder if you want to see what I mean (this will of course, ruin the keynote file unless you rezip it and rename it .keynote).

I expect that one day, the Final Rendered file, like we see in most Movies, will become an "option" for slower machines in the future. For instance; A folder of 3D objects defined into characters, textures and a script, can give you an entire 3D move. That was KIND OF the idea at one time with some attempts at a 3D Quicktime object in the past -- but the per-channel rendering technology, is going to need a separation between content and rendering, and I think more and more "renderings" will be a CPU-saving temp file, rather than anything that is necessary except when making something that you post for others to enjoy.

The Keynote file (as an ideal example of the new document file) could be dropped into FCP and you could then render out an entire award show, so Keynote suddenly becomes something like a storyboard application -- and FCP, since it doesn't care about whatever is INSIDE a QT file, is merely a rendering and compositing engine with timeline.

Soundtrack has been a clumsy add-on to FCP, it should merely be a MODE of looking at a file in FCP, rather than outputting to a separate file -- and as a standalone product, it would be better just to have a Logic+Garageband hybrid. Either you are composing something, or you are cleaning up audio for a video -- it seems a logical way to break up sound editing tasks.

Then Motion/Shake, is for composing 3D and video files.
post #33 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple will release a "spectacular" update to its Final Cut Pro professional video editing application this spring, a new report claims.

Any word on if I will have to pay Apple 30% on any revenue I generate using FCP?
post #34 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I use FCS for editing and experimentation -- mostly for, home movies and some experimentation for friends and my own amusement -- I definitely am not a professional, but sometimes need to go beyond iMovie.

I enjoy using Motion to add 3D effects to 2D images -- and find it to be quite powerful.
I especially like that, unlike FCP, it does real-time rendering.
What is it abut Motion that you dislike -- am I missing something?

TIA,
Dick

Hi,
I'm working with animation, visuals and post production. I like to stay in detailed control, and to have a great overview of my setup, and work fast.

Every time I work with Motion I have the feeling I'm using something very big and clumsy. I agree that the rendering engine itself seems pretty powerful, but I just think the user interface is too square. Also the constant hick-ups and unexplainable sudden wait-freezes that has been there from version 1.
The UI in Shake, (a software that Apple bought and discontinued, and assigned those developers to Motion and Final Cut I think) has another take on UI, it's "node based" and you can connect things the way you like... like a "mind map", as with the professional alternative Nuke etc. They might have a steeper learning curve, but developing for professionals I think you should go for the UI that can take you the furthest. Not necessarily the UI that is the easiest to grasp. We can learn complex tools. No problem. If they thought the node based UI was too hard to grasp, instead of going backwards to a good old list with a timeline - they should have gone "This Node based view has real advantages. How do we make THAT even more accessible?

It's not always the best solution to lay pieces of images in a stack. Sometimes you need to spread them out on a big light box and connect different results in a smarter way than just from top to bottom. If someone, then Apple should understand this... think different, the crazy ones and all.

But this is really not a Node View vs List View issue.
No, my biggest remark is the following:
If they made this software as a part of a pro package, and it turns out the users who appreciate it the most are users like yourself, home enthusiasts and hobbyists that like to go beyond iMovie - and then people who liked Shake, (that they bought and discontinued), moved on to professional products like Nuke... then I think they missed the mark with Motion.
post #35 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

The UI in Shake, (a software that Apple bought and discontinued, and assigned those developers to Motion and Final Cut I think) has another take on UI, it's "node based" and you can connect things the way you like... like a "mind map", as with the professional alternative Nuke etc.

When Apple abandoned Shake, didn't the key team members leave to various companies like The Foundry (who make Nuke)? While I have not used Nuke beyond watching a demo, it seems that Nuke does what it does so well that it would take Apple a lot to come up with something comparable and even more to come up with something that will convince major production companies that have moved their pipelines from Shake to say Nuke to go back to Apple (I am not saying they can't or that the next version of Motion won't be great but they are really going to have to put a lot of effort into the product to catch up and then surpass what is out there now).
post #36 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

According to the report, differences of opinion between the teams working on Shake and Motion regarding an ideal unified interface for the suite "hamstrung" part of the project, causing several features to be deferred to a 2013 version of the software.

Didn't they discontinue Shake? Why would there be teams working on it?
post #37 of 49
I wonder what the upgrade price will be. I've only had FCS for a year or so, so I'm excited!
post #38 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by autism109201 View Post

I wonder what the upgrade price will be. I've only had FCS for a year or so, so I'm excited!

Hopefully, it'll be as aggressive as the the upgrade from either FCS 1 or 2 to the latest FCS which is $299. We shall see.
post #39 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

Must be a lot of unsung brilliant creative people here. Amazing how many criticize a product that some of the great directors/studios/etc., are doing so well with it now.

Love to see all your Curriculum Vitae.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/in-action/

What are you talking about? They're criticizing iMovie. Are you saying the great directors are using iMovie? Get a clue.
post #40 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

What are you talking about? They're criticizing iMovie.

That's what I tried to tell him.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Report says dramatic, ambitious Final Cut Pro update coming in spring 2011