Regarding the interface, I am not asking for complete overhaul like Apple did with iMovie '08. I am asking for usability and "look and feel" updates.
Take the browser window, for instance. On the list view, the app does not at all feel like other Mac OS X apps. Sort orders don't make much sense either. Now, I realize Final Cut Pro is a pro app, but so are Aperture and Logic, which sport similarly minimal and tiny pro interface but they still manage to behave and feel like Mac OS X apps.
Color looks to be very powerful from the demonstrations I've seen, but it's still blindsided by poor UI. My look at it is from the previous version, it looks like Apple may have improved it for the new version. It just did not look or behave like an OS X app. It looks and behaves a lot more like an X11 style app from the 90's. If you're used to X11, then it's probably OK, but it is very out of place compared to regular OS X apps and the rest of the studio.
Do you actually use Color? If all you have seen are demonstrations then I don't think you have any legitimate basis for your comments. Your comparison of Color's UI to X11 is not accurate. Color's UI is the way it is because it is a coloring app. Extraneous UI colors would be distracting.
Do you actually use Color? If all you have seen are demonstrations then I don't think you have any legitimate basis for your comments. Your comparison of Color's UI to X11 is not accurate. Color's UI is the way it is because it is a coloring app. Extraneous UI colors would be distracting.
Color is not crap just because you don't use it.
I've actually tried to use it.
It's not about the colors of the UI. The behavior and how things are styled are just way off. The text rendering of the UI has horrible kerning, or is just a bad font. If for some reason a monospaced font really is necessary, there has to be better ones. The tab shape is not consistent with anything else, even in Final Cut.
Take a look at the file open and save dialogue boxes and tell me that's not brain dead. The folder icon is needlessly different from what the Finder uses. And file names are addressed by unix convention, not OS X convention, such as /Volumes/DriveName/FileName rather than just DriveName/FileName.
Maybe you're willing to ignore such things, but it's not really something that follows any Mac OS or Pro App conventions to speak of.
Now if Adobe comes through ( which i have my doubts , especially Mac version ) but if they do , support 64bit in CS5 and make multithreading even better we're gonna be entering in dark ages of Adobe monopoly.
No 64 bit , no Open CL and no Grand Central support.
Since those are all reportedly SL features, and that version of the OS isn't actually on the market yet, don't you think it's likely that they have to wait for that OS to come out of beta before releasing a SL-compatible version of software for it?
I'll lay 20/1 we get exactly those features in a simple update within days of SL's release.
Nah, Apple has been showing obvious signs of becoming luke warm towards authoring video on DVD. Apple won't release any major new applications for it.
Apple has added publishing directly to YouTube, MobileMe, and the iPhone right in Final Cut Pro. This shows what direction Apple is headed in. Publishing video to the web is more convenient, cheaper, and easier than authoring and burning DVD's.
That may be so, but I am a PRO Film/TV Editor. I NEED to send DISKS to colleagues, clients, broadcasters, cast members etc. It makes me look pretty lame when I have to tell my producer that I cannot burn him a bue-ray of his HD show, to screen on his 1080p TV at home. Especially after he just spent $25 000 on our FCP based HD edit suite. Pretty lame.
The producer should know you cannot use FCS to author Blu-ray. You've never been able to.
I also work in film/televison, it's not a common request for the editors to deliver cuts on Blu-ray. Production workflow doesn't adopt new technology that quickly. There aren't very many people who even have Blu-ray burners or players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennethsteven
That may be so, but I am a PRO Film/TV Editor. I NEED to send DISKS to colleagues, clients, broadcasters, cast members etc. It makes me look pretty lame when I have to tell my producer that I cannot burn him a bue-ray of his HD show, to screen on his 1080p TV at home. Especially after he just spent $25 000 on our FCP based HD edit suite. Pretty lame.
The producer should know you cannot use FCS to author Blu-ray. You've never been able to.
I also work in film/televison, it's not a common request for the editors to deliver cuts on Blu-ray. Production workflow doesn't adopt new technology that quickly. There aren't very many people who even have Blu-ray burners or players.
Its true that its not common to make Blue-ray screeners. But, I had two major broadcasters request them from me now. They want to screen the color correction in HD before approving it. Since they are across the country, they can't come to my suite and look at my broadcast monitor. An overnight Fedex of a Blue-ray may not be the same as being there, but its pretty close, and seems to me like something I should be able to do.
I know the uptake on new tech can be slow, but does it have to be non-existent?
The producer should know you cannot use FCS to author Blu-ray. You've never been able to.
I also work in film/televison, it's not a common request for the editors to deliver cuts on Blu-ray. Production workflow doesn't adopt new technology that quickly. There aren't very many people who even have Blu-ray burners or players.
Producers generally don't care too much about the tech side of things, they just want to be able to get what they want/need. If another production house can deliver something and you can't, it just leaves you looking deficient - apple's fault or not. If it is something important enough to them, the producer will definitely "look at other options" when it comes to next job. That's my experience of producers, at least.
You are describing a unique situation between you and those producers. It's not a normal request. Most people are sending screeners on DVD.
The larger post production companies I work around here in NY. Typically to deliver HD material the way you describe. They load the footage on a server, then send the client a URL with a password. With that they can download the footage and watch it. As far as I know none of them are set up to deliver Blu-ray at all.
Yes adoption of new technology can be very slow. Part of the reason for that is because post companies have spent so much money on their current workflow, they don't want to spend more unless they absolutely have to. In 2005 I saw post production comapnies still delivering in Betacam SP and Digital Betacam. Betacam SP is over 20 years old, DigiBeta is over 10 years old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennethsteven
Its true that its not common to make Blue-ray screeners. But, I had two major broadcasters request them from me now. They want to screen the color correction in HD before approving it. Since they are across the country, they can't come to my suite and look at my broadcast monitor. An overnight Fedex of a Blue-ray may not be the same as being there, but its pretty close, and seems to me like something I should be able to do.
I know the uptake on new tech can be slow, but does it have to be non-existent?
You are correct that producers can make unusual to outrageous requests. But still the request has to be within the reality of what can be done. Delivering in Blu-ray is not a common workflow. Virtually no one is set up to author Blu-ray deliverables.
I've seen it far more common to load footage on servers and stream it to the client.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
Producers generally don't care too much about the tech side of things, they just want to be able to get what they want/need. If another production house can deliver something and you can't, it just leaves you looking deficient - apple's fault or not. If it is something important enough to them, the producer will definitely "look at other options" when it comes to next job. That's my experience of producers, at least.
Man, they updated Logic Express but not Final Cut Express. =/
Actually they didn't, Logic Express doesn't get an update until next month.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclarenf1
I just called Apple Final Cut Tech Support and they confirmed that the New Final Cut 7 is fully 64 bit with Open CL support for the new Snow Leopard. They said it was state on the web site under www.apple.com/finalcutstudio........ yeah, good luck finding it under that GENERAL location.
Anyway, they did say it was fully 64 but with Open CL for what it's worth.
So has anyone actually found that info on the apple site? I hate to say it, but I'll bet the tech support guy was wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
It is 64 bit.
What is? The app, or AVCHD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wally007
Soundtracks Pro 2 cost me many nights working overtime cuz it crashes so much that i have to save every 2 minutes. Look at the Soundtrack forums and you'll see. Its worse than Motion 1 ever was.
Amen to that. The new info on STP3 is meaningless to me, the only thing that matters is that it actually works right, like STP1 and STP2 never did.
Since those are all reportedly SL features, and that version of the OS isn't actually on the market yet, don't you think it's likely that they have to wait for that OS to come out of beta before releasing a SL-compatible version of software for it?
I'll lay 20/1 we get exactly those features in a simple update within days of SL's release.
By the time this new FCS ships Snow Leopard is going to be days away. FCS delivery says 2-6 weeks. Snow leopard is 8 weeks away.
No way Grand Central and 64-bit is small update away. These things take years to rewrite to be 64 bit. Many people in the industry were pretty certain Apple was busy doing just that when they didnt release anything last year.
Best talent ( working on Pro apps ) probably took off when apple nixed Shake team and what was left of scare resources went into iPhone OS.
By the time this new FCS ships Snow Leopard is going to be days away. FCS delivery says 2-6 weeks. Snow leopard is 8 weeks away.
Nope. I ordered mine yesterday morning and it's slated for delivery next week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wally007
No way Grand Central and 64-bit is small update away. These things take years to rewrite to be 64 bit. Many people in the industry were pretty certain Apple was busy doing just that when they didnt release anything last year.
They can't release Grand Central tech if there's no OS out yet. So what's to say it's not waiting in the wings? Early leaks from the SL betas are clear that multiple CPU's are heavily optimised in ALL SL apps - and Apple knows that the real showcase for these performance gains will be its Pro apps. But they simply can't show that until SL is out. Why they chose to release a non-SL version of the app first is a little perplexing, but divining the Applethink has always been nigh on impossible. I think you take an unrealistically pessimistic view of things.
Comments
Take the browser window, for instance. On the list view, the app does not at all feel like other Mac OS X apps. Sort orders don't make much sense either. Now, I realize Final Cut Pro is a pro app, but so are Aperture and Logic, which sport similarly minimal and tiny pro interface but they still manage to behave and feel like Mac OS X apps.
Color looks to be very powerful from the demonstrations I've seen, but it's still blindsided by poor UI. My look at it is from the previous version, it looks like Apple may have improved it for the new version. It just did not look or behave like an OS X app. It looks and behaves a lot more like an X11 style app from the 90's. If you're used to X11, then it's probably OK, but it is very out of place compared to regular OS X apps and the rest of the studio.
Do you actually use Color? If all you have seen are demonstrations then I don't think you have any legitimate basis for your comments. Your comparison of Color's UI to X11 is not accurate. Color's UI is the way it is because it is a coloring app. Extraneous UI colors would be distracting.
Color is not crap just because you don't use it.
Do you actually use Color? If all you have seen are demonstrations then I don't think you have any legitimate basis for your comments. Your comparison of Color's UI to X11 is not accurate. Color's UI is the way it is because it is a coloring app. Extraneous UI colors would be distracting.
Color is not crap just because you don't use it.
I've actually tried to use it.
It's not about the colors of the UI. The behavior and how things are styled are just way off. The text rendering of the UI has horrible kerning, or is just a bad font. If for some reason a monospaced font really is necessary, there has to be better ones. The tab shape is not consistent with anything else, even in Final Cut.
Take a look at the file open and save dialogue boxes and tell me that's not brain dead. The folder icon is needlessly different from what the Finder uses. And file names are addressed by unix convention, not OS X convention, such as /Volumes/DriveName/FileName rather than just DriveName/FileName.
Maybe you're willing to ignore such things, but it's not really something that follows any Mac OS or Pro App conventions to speak of.
Panasonic has at least two pro camcorders that are primarily AVCHD, maybe a few others that will record as AVCHD as an option.
Which cameras are those? Every Panasonic camera I've used for pro shooting was either DVC ProHD or AVC-I.
http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...GroupId=112502
It's a little more low-end than I remember, but still marketed as pro, and certainly not consumer pricing.
Now if Adobe comes through ( which i have my doubts , especially Mac version ) but if they do , support 64bit in CS5 and make multithreading even better we're gonna be entering in dark ages of Adobe monopoly.
John Nack at Adobe said 15 months ago that CS5 for OS X will be 32-bit.
Since then Adobe has released an official FAQ (pdf) on the subject confirming that.
No 64 bit , no Open CL and no Grand Central support.
Since those are all reportedly SL features, and that version of the OS isn't actually on the market yet, don't you think it's likely that they have to wait for that OS to come out of beta before releasing a SL-compatible version of software for it?
I'll lay 20/1 we get exactly those features in a simple update within days of SL's release.
Nah, Apple has been showing obvious signs of becoming luke warm towards authoring video on DVD. Apple won't release any major new applications for it.
Apple has added publishing directly to YouTube, MobileMe, and the iPhone right in Final Cut Pro. This shows what direction Apple is headed in. Publishing video to the web is more convenient, cheaper, and easier than authoring and burning DVD's.
That may be so, but I am a PRO Film/TV Editor. I NEED to send DISKS to colleagues, clients, broadcasters, cast members etc. It makes me look pretty lame when I have to tell my producer that I cannot burn him a bue-ray of his HD show, to screen on his 1080p TV at home. Especially after he just spent $25 000 on our FCP based HD edit suite. Pretty lame.
http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...GroupId=112502
It's a little more low-end than I remember, but still marketed as pro, and certainly not consumer pricing.
I also work in film/televison, it's not a common request for the editors to deliver cuts on Blu-ray. Production workflow doesn't adopt new technology that quickly. There aren't very many people who even have Blu-ray burners or players.
That may be so, but I am a PRO Film/TV Editor. I NEED to send DISKS to colleagues, clients, broadcasters, cast members etc. It makes me look pretty lame when I have to tell my producer that I cannot burn him a bue-ray of his HD show, to screen on his 1080p TV at home. Especially after he just spent $25 000 on our FCP based HD edit suite. Pretty lame.
It will be nice, except if I have to shell out big dollars to some smart ass to teach me how to use this?
The producer should know you cannot use FCS to author Blu-ray. You've never been able to.
I also work in film/televison, it's not a common request for the editors to deliver cuts on Blu-ray. Production workflow doesn't adopt new technology that quickly. There aren't very many people who even have Blu-ray burners or players.
Its true that its not common to make Blue-ray screeners. But, I had two major broadcasters request them from me now. They want to screen the color correction in HD before approving it. Since they are across the country, they can't come to my suite and look at my broadcast monitor. An overnight Fedex of a Blue-ray may not be the same as being there, but its pretty close, and seems to me like something I should be able to do.
I know the uptake on new tech can be slow, but does it have to be non-existent?
The producer should know you cannot use FCS to author Blu-ray. You've never been able to.
I also work in film/televison, it's not a common request for the editors to deliver cuts on Blu-ray. Production workflow doesn't adopt new technology that quickly. There aren't very many people who even have Blu-ray burners or players.
Producers generally don't care too much about the tech side of things, they just want to be able to get what they want/need. If another production house can deliver something and you can't, it just leaves you looking deficient - apple's fault or not. If it is something important enough to them, the producer will definitely "look at other options" when it comes to next job. That's my experience of producers, at least.
The larger post production companies I work around here in NY. Typically to deliver HD material the way you describe. They load the footage on a server, then send the client a URL with a password. With that they can download the footage and watch it. As far as I know none of them are set up to deliver Blu-ray at all.
Yes adoption of new technology can be very slow. Part of the reason for that is because post companies have spent so much money on their current workflow, they don't want to spend more unless they absolutely have to. In 2005 I saw post production comapnies still delivering in Betacam SP and Digital Betacam. Betacam SP is over 20 years old, DigiBeta is over 10 years old.
Its true that its not common to make Blue-ray screeners. But, I had two major broadcasters request them from me now. They want to screen the color correction in HD before approving it. Since they are across the country, they can't come to my suite and look at my broadcast monitor. An overnight Fedex of a Blue-ray may not be the same as being there, but its pretty close, and seems to me like something I should be able to do.
I know the uptake on new tech can be slow, but does it have to be non-existent?
I've seen it far more common to load footage on servers and stream it to the client.
Producers generally don't care too much about the tech side of things, they just want to be able to get what they want/need. If another production house can deliver something and you can't, it just leaves you looking deficient - apple's fault or not. If it is something important enough to them, the producer will definitely "look at other options" when it comes to next job. That's my experience of producers, at least.
Man, they updated Logic Express but not Final Cut Express. =/
Actually they didn't, Logic Express doesn't get an update until next month.
I just called Apple Final Cut Tech Support and they confirmed that the New Final Cut 7 is fully 64 bit with Open CL support for the new Snow Leopard. They said it was state on the web site under www.apple.com/finalcutstudio........ yeah, good luck finding it under that GENERAL location.
Anyway, they did say it was fully 64 but with Open CL for what it's worth.
So has anyone actually found that info on the apple site? I hate to say it, but I'll bet the tech support guy was wrong.
It is 64 bit.
What is? The app, or AVCHD?
Soundtracks Pro 2 cost me many nights working overtime cuz it crashes so much that i have to save every 2 minutes. Look at the Soundtrack forums and you'll see. Its worse than Motion 1 ever was.
Amen to that. The new info on STP3 is meaningless to me, the only thing that matters is that it actually works right, like STP1 and STP2 never did.
Since those are all reportedly SL features, and that version of the OS isn't actually on the market yet, don't you think it's likely that they have to wait for that OS to come out of beta before releasing a SL-compatible version of software for it?
I'll lay 20/1 we get exactly those features in a simple update within days of SL's release.
By the time this new FCS ships Snow Leopard is going to be days away. FCS delivery says 2-6 weeks. Snow leopard is 8 weeks away.
No way Grand Central and 64-bit is small update away. These things take years to rewrite to be 64 bit. Many people in the industry were pretty certain Apple was busy doing just that when they didnt release anything last year.
Best talent ( working on Pro apps ) probably took off when apple nixed Shake team and what was left of scare resources went into iPhone OS.
John Nack at Adobe said 15 months ago that CS5 for OS X will be 32-bit.
Since then Adobe has released an official FAQ (pdf) on the subject confirming that.
wwhere exactly is the part where it says CS5 is going to be 32 bit on Mac ?
here's a quote from article you linked
" (Our goal is to ship a 64-bit Mac version with Photoshop CS5, "
nobody needs Fireworks , dreamweaver or go live to be 64bit. If PS and AE make it to 64bit , everyone is gonna be happy camper.
By the time this new FCS ships Snow Leopard is going to be days away. FCS delivery says 2-6 weeks. Snow leopard is 8 weeks away.
Nope. I ordered mine yesterday morning and it's slated for delivery next week.
No way Grand Central and 64-bit is small update away. These things take years to rewrite to be 64 bit. Many people in the industry were pretty certain Apple was busy doing just that when they didnt release anything last year.
They can't release Grand Central tech if there's no OS out yet. So what's to say it's not waiting in the wings? Early leaks from the SL betas are clear that multiple CPU's are heavily optimised in ALL SL apps - and Apple knows that the real showcase for these performance gains will be its Pro apps. But they simply can't show that until SL is out. Why they chose to release a non-SL version of the app first is a little perplexing, but divining the Applethink has always been nigh on impossible. I think you take an unrealistically pessimistic view of things.