or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Next Final Cut Pro privately demoed by Apple, deemed 'a jaw-dropper'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Next Final Cut Pro privately demoed by Apple, deemed 'a jaw-dropper' - Page 2

post #41 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunabku View Post

Hopefully Final Cut is enough of a jaw dropper that we can use it instead of after effects to animate a jaw working on your face. There in lies the key for me - are we going beyond the keyframe metaphor to a more user friendly implementation of Shake's node system? Hopefully the Motion UI got dropped away like your jaw.

praise jah

I agree, node-style UIs are notoriously opaque in their function. They are a product of engineers and programmers, not interface designers. I do like Motion's interface, but even it could stand for some sweet, sweet refinement.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #42 of 78
And what does Apple expect people to run these Final Cut render farms on?

Rack mounted Mac Pros? LOL.
post #43 of 78
I've been trained by many-a-Larry Jordan recorded sessions. The man is eloquent, intelligent and has a beautiful voice, to boot. Someone with such a wonderful voice must be trustworthy on such matters.
post #44 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

Now, if only Apple were to come out with software to blow away Photoshop !!

It's called PIXELMATOR, so Apple doesn't have to.
It's available on the Mac App Store.
I love it!
post #45 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

Most incredible is a new, intelligent computerized assistant, called "Clippy." Clippy knows what you are doing, and helpfully asks questions.

Just the thought of Clippy in FCP makes me laugh: It looks like youre editing a movie. Would you like help?
post #46 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Uh, when you say the exact same thing for everything, it ceases to have any meaning.

You mean like your constant negative "anti-apple rants"?
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #47 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Uh, when you say the exact same thing for everything, it ceases to have any meaning.

As has been pointed out, the "jaw dropping" remark wasn't from Jobs, it was from a video pro who attended the demo. Not that context or sense is going to deter a little windup basher from droning on. Because that's all they know how to do.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #48 of 78
Depends on what you will be doing, but generally: yes. Expect the next FCP using your hardware like 1000% more effectively as the current version. Current version is like a Ferrari (with a dated look) using a lawnmower engine. The next version will have a Ferrari engine, and a decent design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ayow View Post

I'm probably going to buy the new standard 13" MBP, are these specs good enough for the next FCP?
post #49 of 78
With Apple these days "Jaw-Dropper" could mean anything from "It is the best thing ever and will eat Avid's lunch" to "It looks like an iOS App and Apple wants a 30% of the box office take on any movie we edit with it."
post #50 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

That's like what SJ says about everything. Lame.

That's what every company CEO says about every product their company releases. Why make such a pithy remark? Besides, except for the tech 'community' on places like this, on the whole everyone does LOVE everything apple produce - check the sales figures and company profits.

If people don't like things, they don't buy them. People appear to be buying everything Apple big time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

It's called PIXELMATOR, so Apple doesn't have to.
It's available on the Mac App Store.
I love it!

If you think Pixelmator is a replacement for Photoshop, then you have no idea how to use the power features of photoshop and are probably comparing pixelmator to photosop elements - even then many features are missing.
post #51 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by eswinson View Post

With Apple these days "Jaw-Dropper" could mean anything from "It is the best thing ever and will eat Avid's lunch" to "It looks like an iOS App and Apple wants a 30% of the box office take on any movie we edit with it."

Yup, because Apple are the only reseller in the world to charge commission/mark-up

These comments are getting boring. For the record, you buy something in Walmart, on average 20% goes to the store for their overheads and profit. You buy something from a high street electronics reseller, it can be anything up to 40%. This is nothing new, I'm amazed the tech community are so naive in business matters. This is why there are wholesale and retail prices, normally with around 20 - 30% difference, sometimes mark ups are even 200 - 300% - buy a bag of potatoes at the supermarket for a couple of dollars and think how much the potato grower actually got for that bag of potatoes.

It's business ladies and gentlemen, and Apple are a business - they're not doing anything that any other business don't do.
post #52 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

Yup, because Apple are the only reseller in the world to charge commission/mark-up

These comments are getting boring. For the record, you buy something in Walmart, on average 20% goes to the store for their overheads and profit. You buy something from a high street electronics reseller, it can be anything up to 40%. This is nothing new, I'm amazed the tech community are so naive in business matters. This is why there are wholesale and retail prices, normally with around 20 - 30% difference, sometimes mark ups are even 200 - 300% - buy a bag of potatoes at the supermarket for a couple of dollars and think how much the potato grower actually got for that bag of potatoes.

It's business ladies and gentlemen, and Apple are a business - they're not doing anything that any other business don't do.

"Apple takes 30%" is clearly the new "don't hold it that way", i.e a leaden bit of mockery repeated ad nauseum by people who imagine they're being clever.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #53 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruda View Post

Grand Central Dispatch (multithreaded Compressor alone would save tons of time, same for Color rendering).
OpenCL
64 bits

Nice and about time.

Looking at the screenshot it doesn't look like the one we saw gee, about 4 years ago. But it could be. Very much like the simplicity of iMovie and can be made to look like iMovie to some degree. No more needing to render fx, drop in all types of media and it just plays. Biggest change was you never saw the RED LINE "RENDER NEEDED" and it just played but very deep with a much easier learning curve.

Apple knows, I'm sure, that games out sold music and movies combined but they also know the future of broadcasting is the Internet. Cable, Dish, Direct will be in trouble in a few more years as there will be 10's of thousands of programming on the net which means many indie artists, producers and of course, 1000's of new editors.

Will have to wait and see. Maybe it has an Avid, IMovie and FCP skins for easy learning curves plus let's be real, iMovie, although very consumer, did/does a lot if things much easier than the old FCP, especially when it came to file types, rendering, FX and I think the waiting, real time fx ate going to be instant.

Godspeed and may EVERYONES DREAMS come true.
O.T. Hope it's okay to ask and post.

Lost my dad in Aug of last summer. He went in for a simole pacemaker replacement.
When moving him to Rehab, the EMT took a BP reading on his bad arm and got a false positive. They then went ti nearest hospital where he got Penecillin, which He is VERY allgeric to. Put him in epeltic shock. Needed breathing tubes. Kept getting infections and never snapped out of it. Many we speak to say we have a great case if we
Want to pursue. He passed after being in the hospital for almist 4 months when he should have only been there a week, MAX!!!-!!!!!-!!!-!-!!
2 weeks later my mum was told she had sine cancer spots, albeit small, in her lungs. To my understanding, if you are sick ( flu, cold), tour supposed to tell the dr and they wait in your chemo session.

My mum got great results, never got suck, then they stopped radiation every day, none at all and chemo once a month, instead of once a week. The one time she is suck and my sister was going to tell the doctor, she drops our mum off, parks, gets up to the office and they are already doing the chemo. Longer story short, she is now in ICU with less fluids coming out then going in. They font think it's cancer related. One spot to close to an artery so they don't want to take a chance of it getting into her blood but is pretty sick, a fighter, wants to get home ASAP and I thought my wife and I would ask for positive results, PRAYER (her name is Olga), positive vibes and to just PRAY SHE IS AROUND TO SEE ME AND MY WIFE, Sheri, have a few children and know we are doing great plus we go to Maine every summer which we e haven't done for years.
Much appreciated.
Thank You!!!-!!!!!-!!!-!-!!
Sincerely,
Franki
PS. While I know she is going to be okay. My boss is going to NY the 13-17 and said I should go and see her from 10th (Friday) to 17th. If I do, also pray I find some great deals on airline tickets/car, if need be. THANKS AGAIN!!! REALLY!!!!!
post #54 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Rendering speeds might be a bit slow with HD material. Otherwise, it would be fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeysbistro View Post

better to wait and see the new software specs, you might miss out if you decide to gamble

if you want to use the current FCP Studio, specifically Color and/or Motion you need a screen resolution of 1680x1050, plus 256MB video ram for 32-bit rendering and 512MB for 4K video files. so check your specs!

Quote:
Originally Posted by dacloo View Post

Depends on what you will be doing, but generally: yes. Expect the next FCP using your hardware like 1000% more effectively as the current version. Current version is like a Ferrari (with a dated look) using a lawnmower engine. The next version will have a Ferrari engine, and a decent design.

Thx guys!

I know its getting close with the IGU, but the 15" is just a bit too heavy for me in the daily routine, so I'm stuck with the 13"...

One more thing, can anyone tell me a good site where i can read up on FCP and find help if I got some questions about the program?

You can send me a PM if it's not there right place here.
post #55 of 78
If the new FCS includes this capability, it seems that Thunderbolt + FCP wcould allow for a single MacBook Pro to access multiple camera feeds, allowing it to work as a video mixer, say, for a news truck or covering a live performance or something. That would be cool.
Hmmm.. Can it do that already? I don't know. I haven't looked at FCP since v2.
"Don't be a dick!"Wil Wheaton
Reply
"Don't be a dick!"Wil Wheaton
Reply
post #56 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Dude, its exactly the same line he says before every product release, including the lame ipod nano. Think different... come up with something new to say.

You are truly amazing.
Apple is about to release a major upgrade to a wonderful product and all you can do is attack Steve Jobs. Why do you have it in for him ? Why can't you make an articulate comment on the product, even if its negative (can't see how, as you weren't invited to the demo).
I don't get you, every time you post is just to annoy people and to attack Sj and Apple.
Can you enlighten us all and explain why ?
post #57 of 78
The big question is will Final Cut Server be updated as well?

A big improvement would be if Apple added a node based interface like Telestream Vantage for creating workflows visually. Well that and realeasing proper hardware to run it on like an Xserve 2!
post #58 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Uh, when you say the exact same thing for everything, it ceases to have any meaning.

Chill out... he's just having fun.
post #59 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I agree, node-style UIs are notoriously opaque in their function. They are a product of engineers and programmers, not interface designers. I do like Motion's interface, but even it could stand for some sweet, sweet refinement.


First, I am not a pro -- I use FCP as a hobbyist, experimentation, home movie, etc.

I. too, think that node-based editing is opaque.

But then, a post by @palegolas, in another thread, got me thinking that it need not be that way;


Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

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.


Here's my post.



Thanks for the considered answer.

I, too, find the Motion UI a bit "clunky" -- it just seems to take soooo many levels to accomplish something -- you do lose your place.

I dabbled a bit with QC but it quickly becomes too cluttered.

I briefly experimented with a node-based (FCP Color FX) system -- but found it less than intuitive.


Of all the points you made, the following hit home:

Quote:
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...

Can you spread your "images" out on a light table, and have each effect (filter, whatever) you create display the result rather than the underlying details of the node?

That, to me, would be very intuitive -- something like:

1) Tap an image to create a duplicate of the original
2) Select the new duplicate and specify whatever filter, effect, etc.
3) Deselect the duplicate and the result is shown

Repeat the above as many times as desired and one result node can be dropped on top of another to form a composite result.

Possible?


Here's his answer.



Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

Yes. That's the power of node based systems. But you don't even have to duplicate the original, it only has to be loaded once and different branches of processes/ filters can be connected to one file. Let's say you wanna make a manual green screen key.
1) you have the footage and the greenscreen is bad.
2) send the image without alpha to a color correction filter of your choice to make the green stand out. Don't worry about messing up the colors. Don't connect the result to the final composit.
3) send the saturated result to a color range selection filter and get it to make a alpha mask of the greens.
4) send the alpha mask result to the original unprocessed footage as a mask.
5) send the result from the original footage, now with alpha, through another color corrector of choice, this time making it look good and send it to the final composit.

Sure there are good keyers out there that does this for you, but it's just an example of how flexible a node based system is.

I didn't see this until a few mninutes ago... it was posted after my bedtime.


What I get from his answer is that there may be a way to:

1) display each node as partial result rather than the underlying processes used to achieve the result.

2) manipulate these results as images on a light table


There is still the business of wires connecting the nodes -- but I can think of several ways of handling that:
-- optionally display the wires or not
-- optionally replace the wires with numbered stubs
-- option-select a result or stub to see the wires


If that's doable, then a node-based system could be more intuitive than a stack like motion uses).
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #60 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

If you are 4:2:0 and you know what that means, you are "prosumer".

It means it's time to get crunk.
post #61 of 78
Annotation!

That would be high on my wishlist!

I don't use FCS on a regular basis -- but have periodic "fits" where I will use it intensively for several days.

I usually try to build off prior projects I've done or training examples.


One problem, I always face, with existing examples (mine or training) is that there are usually several layers --- each with clips, filters, effects, etc.

There is a lot going on and it is buried in the details (e.g. the settings in a filter applied to a clip -- as it relates to the settings in a filter another concurrent clip that is part of a composite.

I spend a lot of time figuring out what I have done, and why.

What would be nice is:

1) Be able to add annotation (in whatever detail to any component used -- clip, filter, effect

2) Have an overall annotation layer (or layers) that could be used to annotate/telestrate what's going on at key points -- e.g. circle (annotate) several concurrent clips (layers) in the timeline (with their effects & filters) -- then explain how they interrelate and why they are done that way
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #62 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

If you are 4:2:0 and you know what that means, you are "prosumer".

Or a starving indie filmmaker!
post #63 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

Or a starving indie filmmaker!

Or you do work for the World Wide Interwebs.

But that's just a phase--and in no means as big as, much less bigger than Hollywood et al.

Don't confuse bits/color-space for ultimate quality, format specs for caliber of content, or gadgetry for artistry, mon frere, or you'll end up like Lucas (or worse, Lucas acolytes who dream of his success w/out half his tech genius or early inspiration).
post #64 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

Most incredible is a new, intelligent computerized assistant, called "Clippy." Clippy knows what you are doing, and helpfully asks questions.

No, that sounds too much like the old Microsoft Office Assistant that waves goodbye to you when you kill him out of frustration.
post #65 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

Besides the Cohen brothers, Murch, Hammer and Copula, and based on the positions available now, it appears that FCP is well entrenched in the pro market.*

In fact, 9 out of 10 of this year's (2010) nominees in the "Documentary Feature" and "Documentary Short" categories used Final Cut Studio to make their films."

Do you really not know how to spell those director's names?

Outside of some indie films, docus and basic cable reality programming, AVID is the standard in Hollywood, regardless of your FCP fantasies.

I'm can't wait to see the new version, but it's going to take more than slobbering comments from a guy whose life and business revolve around FCP before I get excited.
post #66 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

No, that sounds too much like the old Microsoft Office Assistant that waves goodbye to you when you kill him out of frustration.

Whooooosh!
post #67 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellusian View Post

Don't confuse bits/color-space for ultimate quality, format specs for caliber of content, or gadgetry for artistry, mon frere, or you'll end up like Lucas (or worse, Lucas acolytes who dream of his success w/out half his tech genius or early inspiration).

While I don't equate high end gear with creative excellence, it is worth keeping bits and color spaces in mind if you want quality (not creative quality but the quality of the digital end product). A lot of people will pull their already compressed by the camera 8 bit footage into their editor, change the codec, send it out to AE in one format from FCP without protecting the overbrights, work in 8bit and send it out again in a different format and pull it into FCP and change it again to something else etc. causing loss of quality all along the way. Save your angst for your film school classes.
post #68 of 78
Hallelujah! My credit card is primed and ready, Apple

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.9
Black/Space Grey iPad Air with Wi-Fi & LTE | 128GB | On 4GEE
White iPhone 6 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.9
Black/Space Grey iPad Air with Wi-Fi & LTE | 128GB | On 4GEE
White iPhone 6 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #69 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by samwell View Post

Do you really not know how to spell those director's names?

Outside of some indie films, docus and basic cable reality programming, AVID is the standard in Hollywood, regardless of your FCP fantasies.

I'm can't wait to see the new version, but it's going to take more than slobbering comments from a guy whose life and business revolve around FCP before I get excited.

My apologies to Coppola. http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/in-action/

But I gather with your expertise, Disney, Pixar, Industrial Light & Magic or NBC, etc., would by below your expectations. They are, amongst hundreds of production houses that seem to have jobs for anybody with FCP expertise. Hell even IL&M Singapore was looking.

http://tbe.taleo.net/NA9/ats/careers...&cws=6&rid=312
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/li...y/l-california
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/li...ney/l-new+york
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/li...pro/l-new+york
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/li...new+york%2C+ny

Oh. and a little known school, the Carnegie Mellon University College of Fine Arts…
post #70 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Uh, when you say the exact same thing for everything, it ceases to have any meaning.

He doesn't though. And as was pointed out already, he didn't even say that.
post #71 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

It's called PIXELMATOR, so Apple doesn't have to.
It's available on the Mac App Store.
I love it!

Well, that program can compete with Photoshop Elements, but not with Photoshop CS5. That's an order of magnitude more sophisticated.
post #72 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

First, I am not a pro -- I use FCP as a hobbyist, experimentation, home movie, etc.

I. too, think that node-based editing is opaque.

But then, a post by @palegolas, in another thread, got me thinking that it need not be that way;





Here's my post.



Thanks for the considered answer.

I, too, find the Motion UI a bit "clunky" -- it just seems to take soooo many levels to accomplish something -- you do lose your place.

I dabbled a bit with QC but it quickly becomes too cluttered.

I briefly experimented with a node-based (FCP Color FX) system -- but found it less than intuitive.


Of all the points you made, the following hit home:



Can you spread your "images" out on a light table, and have each effect (filter, whatever) you create display the result rather than the underlying details of the node?

That, to me, would be very intuitive -- something like:

1) Tap an image to create a duplicate of the original
2) Select the new duplicate and specify whatever filter, effect, etc.
3) Deselect the duplicate and the result is shown

Repeat the above as many times as desired and one result node can be dropped on top of another to form a composite result.

Possible?


Here's his answer.





I didn't see this until a few mninutes ago... it was posted after my bedtime.


What I get from his answer is that there may be a way to:

1) display each node as partial result rather than the underlying processes used to achieve the result.

2) manipulate these results as images on a light table


There is still the business of wires connecting the nodes -- but I can think of several ways of handling that:
-- optionally display the wires or not
-- optionally replace the wires with numbered stubs
-- option-select a result or stub to see the wires


If that's doable, then a node-based system could be more intuitive than a stack like motion uses).

There is a way to spread out all elements in a Motion project, with a simple key command... but I don't remember what it is. See the videos of Mark Spencer at http://www.applemotion.net/

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #73 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, that program can compete with Photoshop Elements, but not with Photoshop CS5. That's an order of magnitude more sophisticated.

Yes, CS5 is pretty nice. Still discovering all the little things that have been changed and how they help my workflow. The 3D implementation is still clunky. They need to hire some good people for the 3D UI refinement... More like Motion or something simpler. The shadow catcher and model textures implementation are especially bad.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #74 of 78
"There is a way to spread out all elements in a Motion project, with a simple key command... but I don't remember what it is."

With the Canvas selected, simply press X, and all of the layers at the playhead location will fan out so you can see them. If you press SHIFT+X all of the layers in the entire project will fan out.

I was just training for Apple Pro certification in Motion 4. Brand new version coming out is good and bad news for me: I guess training goes back to square one when the new Final Cut Studio is released. Hopefully the new version of Motion won't freeze and crash so much...
post #75 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp View Post

Biggest change was you never saw the RED LINE "RENDER NEEDED" and it just played but very deep with a much easier learning curve.

Of course, that's one major thing they need to fix. Can't believe I forgot one of the biggest annoyances in FCP. The audio curve take so long to render too and I don't get why. Surely the computer can fast forward through hours worth of audio in seconds and just mark the highs and lows to build a graph.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp View Post

Longer story short, she is now in ICU with less fluids coming out then going in. I thought my wife and I would ask for positive results, PRAYER (her name is Olga), positive vibes and to just PRAY SHE IS AROUND TO SEE ME AND MY WIFE, Sheri, have a few children and know we are doing great plus we go to Maine every summer which we e haven't done for years.

Yuck, old-people-fluid-talk but I'm sure everyone here wishes your mother well. I know that grandparents seeing their grandkids grow up is one of the best experiences they can have and I hope your mother has that privilege.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp View Post

also pray I find some great deals on airline tickets/car, if need be.

Matthew 19:14 Bring all your bargains unto me.

If you use the last minute flight sites, you should be ok and book as far in advance as you can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

If that's doable, then a node-based system could be more intuitive than a stack like motion uses).

It is possible, a stack is essentially just a single branch of a node tree, so you just need to have a way to have multiple branches while also allowing them to interact.

After Effects does this in an annoying way using Pre-Comps and multiple comps and they have a node visualizer. The idea with Shake/Nuke etc is that you have an infinite workspace and you just throw things around as you please and you could connect things in a lossless way so compatible filters can combine before computing an image. AE does this transparently though to some extent and actually does some things better than the node editors like layer transforms.

AE takes pre-comps way too far though - you can't even apply effects to a group of layers with making a separate comp. That combined with no separation of x,y,z in earlier versions and no bezier animation curves is head-smackingly stupid. At least Motion gets this stuff right.

All they need to do is to allow you to link properties and layers. I think they added some link mechanism in a later version but the thing about nodes is it actually is easy and intuitive when you need that flexibility as you literally just pull a cable and connect two things. That's the simplest behaviour for that process.

I agree though that layers are easier to grasp most of the time and easier to control their timeline. Nodes are quite easy to disconnect from the timeline and end up screwing things up where you didn't want to as they have complex relationships. Nodes have stability issues too as you create cyclical dependence, which gets computers confused. A depends on B but B depends on C, which depends on A and now C wants to depend on B but... ah forget it, crash. 5 minute autosaves are a lifesaver.

The solution to multiple root braches is easy as you just allow multiple scenes/comps or even the ability to keep adding root nodes. The complex part comes when you try to connect a child node of one branch to the child node of another or make an entire scene a child of another scene.

The child-child link can be done by using a kind of ghost comp. It could exist separately in the comp but you just set its parent inputs manually and it would display as an icon in the graph to let you select it easily.

The majority of a node tree can condense into a layer-based structure, especially with Motion's grouping and having independent groups can take care of the rest. The question is how complex that process becomes on a complex tree with multiple child-child links like when a child-child branch links to another and then the 'ghost comps' become nested themselves.

Apple already has a node-based compositor anyway in their Quartz Composer and I think you can insert these into Motion but again you can see the disconnect from the timeline.

In the end, they are trying to visualise 2D non-linear spatial connections + 1D temporal constraints = 3D in a 2D interface. A single branch is essentially 1D as you can collapse the hierarchy at every level. As soon as you join two child nodes, you can't.

I don't think a 3D interface (even isometric) is the solution but it's the only way to display the above in full without using these separated comps. You also have to consider that GPUs are data parallel not task parallel so they can't process multiple branches at once. Not that it's a huge deal as they are fast but it means caching results more in memory - this is fine in Quartz Composer but not so much in Motion.

No matter what they do, they either over-complicate the UI for people who just use layers or dumb down the UI for people who need the flexibility of nodes. Apple have some of the best UI designers so if anyone can figure out a compromise, it's probably them but they will side on simplicity primarily and that's not good enough for the Shake users who went to Nuke instead.
post #76 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It is possible, a stack is essentially just a single branch of a node tree, so you just need to have a way to have multiple branches while also allowing them to interact.

After Effects does this in an annoying way using Pre-Comps and multiple comps and they have a node visualizer. The idea with Shake/Nuke etc is that you have an infinite workspace and you just throw things around as you please and you could connect things in a lossless way so compatible filters can combine before computing an image. AE does this transparently though to some extent and actually does some things better than the node editors like layer transforms.

AE takes pre-comps way too far though - you can't even apply effects to a group of layers with making a separate comp. That combined with no separation of x,y,z in earlier versions and no bezier animation curves is head-smackingly stupid. At least Motion gets this stuff right.

All they need to do is to allow you to link properties and layers. I think they added some link mechanism in a later version but the thing about nodes is it actually is easy and intuitive when you need that flexibility as you literally just pull a cable and connect two things. That's the simplest behaviour for that process.

I agree though that layers are easier to grasp most of the time and easier to control their timeline. Nodes are quite easy to disconnect from the timeline and end up screwing things up where you didn't want to as they have complex relationships. Nodes have stability issues too as you create cyclical dependence, which gets computers confused. A depends on B but B depends on C, which depends on A and now C wants to depend on B but... ah forget it, crash. 5 minute autosaves are a lifesaver.

The solution to multiple root braches is easy as you just allow multiple scenes/comps or even the ability to keep adding root nodes. The complex part comes when you try to connect a child node of one branch to the child node of another or make an entire scene a child of another scene.

The child-child link can be done by using a kind of ghost comp. It could exist separately in the comp but you just set its parent inputs manually and it would display as an icon in the graph to let you select it easily.

The majority of a node tree can condense into a layer-based structure, especially with Motion's grouping and having independent groups can take care of the rest. The question is how complex that process becomes on a complex tree with multiple child-child links like when a child-child branch links to another and then the 'ghost comps' become nested themselves.

Apple already has a node-based compositor anyway in their Quartz Composer and I think you can insert these into Motion but again you can see the disconnect from the timeline.

In the end, they are trying to visualise 2D non-linear spatial connections + 1D temporal constraints = 3D in a 2D interface. A single branch is essentially 1D as you can collapse the hierarchy at every level. As soon as you join two child nodes, you can't.

I don't think a 3D interface (even isometric) is the solution but it's the only way to display the above in full without using these separated comps. You also have to consider that GPUs are data parallel not task parallel so they can't process multiple branches at once. Not that it's a huge deal as they are fast but it means caching results more in memory - this is fine in Quartz Composer but not so much in Motion.

No matter what they do, they either over-complicate the UI for people who just use layers or dumb down the UI for people who need the flexibility of nodes. Apple have some of the best UI designers so if anyone can figure out a compromise, it's probably them but they will side on simplicity primarily and that's not good enough for the Shake users who went to Nuke instead.


Wow! Thanks for the great post. I think I understand everything except pre-comps -- I have never used AE.


All the talk about node-based editing piqued my interest. I had an old trial version of Shake -- but it would not open... sigh.


As a last resort I found a torrent -- haven't gone that route in years -- but seemed valid as there was no other way to try.


I have beed watching some tutorials and playing around with Shake 4.1.


It looks pretty good.

It is superior to Motion for some things and inferior for others -- to be expected, I guess.

I previously bought Silhouette, a fairly expensive plugin for FCP, to do complex rotos.



Anyway, after a few more Shake tutorials, I think I'll try using it for some of the the things I found difficult to do with FCP, Silhouette and Motion.


I suspect that I will like Shake.


In some of the tutorials they show how Shake can optionally display the visual result of a node: the node/image -- I think that's part of what's needed to be able to simplify and visualize what's going on.

As was discussed earlier. this is similar to the power and elegant simplicity of looking at images on a light table.

Where, Shake fails at this, IMO, is showing all the noodles, all the time -- it becomes a snake-pit or can of worms that clutters the picture.

QC, on the other hand, goes too far -- they encapsulate complexity in a summary node with no patch cords (good) but no visual clue as to what the summary nod does.

What I think would be superior would be just to show the node/images juxtaposed in some natural way -- left to right, top to bottom, whatever.

Then the user could Option-click-hold (or two-finger-press-hold) and expose the noodles connected to that node/image, and their connection to other node/images -- to expose the interrelationship of the node/images. When selected this way, the underlying parameters for the node/image could be displayed



Here's some thoughts that come to my mind:

1) Apple bought the company that made Shake for some reason!

2) Apple discontinued Shake for some reason.

3) Apparently, Apple still owns the Shake technology.

4) Apple may still employ the creative people who created Shake.

5) Assimilating creative people from different, competing technologies into a single product team can be a real challenge -- a cat fight, with some really big cats.


Maybe, the stars are aligned for time, technology, creatives, and UIs!

It could be that Apple has found a way to integrate the use of stack-based and node-based editing -- in such a way that the creative user could use them interchangeably.

Hopefully, this could also be done in such a way to hide (or modularize) complexity, while at the same time, not reducing any capabilities,

A product like like this could span the use from newbie to prosumer to Pro.


It could be:

1) easy to learn (the basics)

2) easy to progress more capable hardware, software modules, training/learning tools

3) easy to become expert.


Maybe it's just dreaming -- but you appear to have similar thoughts.

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #77 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I think I understand everything except pre-comps

I don't think Adobe understand pre-comps either to be fair.

They make you separate layers into a pre-comp to apply effects to a group and then you get the choice to continuously rasterize them so you're like, why did I have to separate them in the first place then? If they are continuously rasterized then by definition they aren't pre-composed. It's just extra work for no benefit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

It is superior to Motion for some things and inferior for others -- to be expected, I guess.

The Multiplane node is essentially Motion's predecessor. That's really all Apple added to Shake beyond Quicktime support. It's very limited but you can see the hardware and software switch in that node and the performance difference, which probably led them to the decision to go GPU-only. It supports point-clouds and 3D objects too.

This might have been the decision that split the Shake team. I think it's the right one but at the time premature. When you see the difference in speed between Motion and AE at processing, it's pretty incredible. Until you start adding things that chokes Motion up of course. OpenCL is really the ideal development for this type of app and I hope one day the benefits will be seen here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Where, Shake fails at this, IMO, is showing all the noodles, all the time -- it becomes a snake-pit or can of worms that clutters the picture.

You can group nodes together, which simplifies things but opening/closing nodes has an odd behaviour as it doesn't prevent overlapping.

I actually find the spaghetti view shows more about what's going on. When you have just a scrollable list of layers that you have to keep collapsing and opening, it's hard to see how the elements affect each other and something as simple as masking a layer becomes a chore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

1) Apple bought the company that made Shake for some reason!
2) Apple discontinued Shake for some reason.

I think they bought it for the same reason as they bought SoundJam/iTunes, FCP, Color, Logic etc - they are powerful apps that they will use themselves as well as their partner companies and good enough to be industry standard. The problem with Shake is the UI is all OpenGL so it's very hard to rework it all, the scripting language and plugin UI is old and there's probably a bit of cross-platform code in there.

I definitely think Shake would have had to be rewritten from the ground up with a GPU-compatible language like GLSL or OpenCL so it made sense to start over. Trouble is they decided to make a motion graphics app which isn't the same thing. You can't for example take passes out of a 3D app and combine them in the way the equations work. If you check out the manual, you can see an example of Abe's Exoddus - some of the best game CGI that still rivals today's FMV made back in 1998. You can't do that with Motion. You should also see a 'monkey boy' reference in the manual too, which is Ballmer's happy dance video.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

3) Apparently, Apple still owns the Shake technology.
4) Apple may still employ the creative people who created Shake.

Some of the Shake team left to work at The Foundry on Nuke, which looks exactly like Shake now but they do own the Shake code and have reworked some of it into Motion. Not sure if it has Keylight yet though as that may be owned by The Foundry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Maybe it's just dreaming -- but you appear to have similar thoughts.

Definitely, I think the tool needs to be simple for new users to pick it up with self-training. I think all apps should be. But they should never compromise on power/flexibility to get there. I think if simplicity has to go initially then it's fine, it just means people have to do a bit more work but at no point will they drop the app for something else because it doesn't do the job.

I think adding in multi-touch gestures will actually help somewhat. Navigating through certain UIs can be done some much quicker with touch input. Timeline navigation can be made so much better with it. Pinch-zoom and pan on a node view too. It's been a while since a major overhaul happened so it'll be good to see what's happened.

I'd quite like to see Motion merged with FCP. I think it's a bit redundant having them as separate apps. The main timeline would essentially have comps and you'd click on one and it would load the layer view in a separate pane. This way you get the multi-comp function of AE but even better as you are in an NLE so no intermediates. All real-time as it's GPU accelerated but can be pre-rendered for complex effects.

Given that a Quartz Composer block could be added, that could take care of some node functionality.
post #78 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

I'm amazed the tech community are so naive in business matters.

It's not just the tech community. How many have actually ran their own businesses?

Also there is a bit of selfishness and greed - who doesn't want something for nothing? What a deal!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Next Final Cut Pro privately demoed by Apple, deemed 'a jaw-dropper'