It is probably some interface app to complement FCP X.
FCP X doesn't need an interface app, it needs to be a useful editing package. And FCP X on iPad is SOOO Pro! Get some video from some Bluetooth DSLR, cut it, then do what? "Share" it? On the iCloud? Don't expect Hollywood post cheques for that.
But a great gimmick for DoPs and directors to keep each other amused during a big shoot.
Maybe not, but I'd like to see a version of FCPX for the iPad that would allow me to use all the features of FCPX in preview mode, and when I'm back at my desktop I can render the full-res.
Using the iPad for quick edits and stuff on a project instead of working from memory is a big plus. Rendering the hires can always wait.
While I believe what you say is true, I have to wonder how you get the previews to work on? I don't edit video, so I honestly don't know.
For my photography, every RAW file has a JPEG embedded. So an iPad version of Aperture is a no brainer, just use the embedded JPEG for the preview image. Like with your video editing, Aperture can work in Preview mode. You can't make edits which would require decoding the RAW file, but you can do all the sorting, organizing, tagging, etc. That would require very little processing power. And even if you needed to decode the RAW file, that's easily within the capabilities of the iPad 2. For video, if you are working in the field, how would you get the files on the iPad and in a format that would work for your preview-mode work?
I assume working on video in preview mode would require more power than for working with photo previews? Also, I suspect you are much more dependent on precision selection working with your video, to select clips at the frame-level, etc. While we photographers love to look at our individual pixels, we don't often try to select individual pixels. Many adjustments are made to the entire photo, and even brush on adjustments cover regions of the photo.
Finally, what would be the market for a pro video app? The vast majority of users would have their needs served by iMovie on iPad. How many would be willing to pay a higher price to get more than iMovie offers? Whereas the current Pictures app is weak. Pathetic, really. And Aperture is an application which appeals to advanced amateurs in addition to pros, a much bigger market. So while I know you weren't comparing pro video vs pro photos possibilities, I have to believe that a pro photos (ie, Aperture) app is a far more likely possibility than a pro video app.
I think that it is possible you don't think that this is impossible. It is possible that I think I agree. While I think I agree it is possible, I think it would be possibly a very impressive engineering feat to manufacture such a relatively large LCD screen at the resolution 2048 by 1536 - ~ same # of pixels as the Cinema display but at more than twice the PPI. Possibly, the feat would be more than very impressive because the manufacturing yield would be much lower than that of the iPhone. Let's not even consider the video RAM (shared with main RAM in iOS devices), the graphics power needed, the battery ...
After considering the possibility of this, I think it is possible that I no longer think this is possible. But if I am wrong - this would not be a very impressive engineering feat; it would be stunning.
Beautiful reply - my words did not deserve such attention.
However, I would merely point you to the recent articles on Apple's use of cash to enable them to develop products as if "from the future" by paying for the development of factories capable of creating these products. I believe the demand would be great enough--even if we see a $199 markup for the "HD" models.
Quad resolution on the same A5 SoC is very unlikely.
The iPad2 has the best of its class GPU performance. An "iPad2 Pro" would only have mediocre GPU performance. And I don't think we will see the next big push in GPU performance before the transition to 28nm.
PS: The resistance of AppleInsider stuff to use proper math is really astonishing
Such as? What would make the iPad scream "PRO" to you, more than the fact that it's already being used by pros for professional work?
Well if I could figure that out I would have a job at Apple!
/Start foot in mouth
But let me try: re a single vertical market where Apple could make me very happy. I know this is just for me and my peers, and way out there (at least 2014-like), but I suspect others would like a device similar capabilities:
I just got back from a 10 day photo trip to Utah. I don't have an iPad yet. Thought about bringing my Macbook Pro to download/review/edit photos, but I was reluctant to risk leaving my primary computer in the trunk at trailheads, and it is too heavy to drag along climbing up slickrock, on multi-day backpacks, with limited battery life, etc. (also pretty useless during the actual shooting!) So all my shots stayed on memory cards and a portable card-reading disc drive, unreviewed, unedited, basically unseen, until I finally got home and could actually LOOK at them and start the real work. And then experience remorse for the shots I got wrong and didn't know it.
The iPad is a photographer's friend, and I hear it is great to take along on shoots, but the memory can max out pretty quick - I am not working in a studio where I can off-load files, and I am taking 18MP shots at up to 30 MB each in RAW format, x three or five exposures for each image (for HDR post-processing), and sometimes up to hundreds of images per day (see "Bryce Canyon"). So I might need 10-20+ GB for a single day of shooting, and my trip was 10 days. Plus if you are doing any editing en-route, you need more memory for multiple versions of image edits, scratch files and processing space for image editing software, etc. Even the 64GB iPad would likely be inadequate for that.
I would like to see an iPad Pro with significantly more memory (like Air's 265MB), more graphics processing capability, possibly much more ram for working with those monster image files (is it ram you need or is the flash memory fast enough?), retina display, seamless automatic upload ("it just works") from you DSLR camera - wifi is already coming to high-end cameras - , possibly some degree of ruggedization (water resistance?) for frequent use outdoors, at least 10 hours of battery life, ideally a screen that can be read in bright sunlight so I don't have to buy a 19th C photographer's hood, and superb editing software with pro capabilities including a serious HDR module.
I fantasize about Apple releasing a fully-featured image editing app (NOT an "Express" version or "Eazel" fingerpainting software for the iPad - what is Adobe thinking, that the iPad is a toy????). The software should have capabilities comparable to Photoshop circa 2006 or better, optimized for the iPad. Uh-oh, watch out Adobe! Of course Apple wouldn't ever be motivated to create something that leapfrogs an Adobe product, right?
That spec would make me scream Pro, and immediately buy one for my next photo trip. Of course I have no idea if any of that is technically feasible
And I expect my dream machine would cost $1500-2000, but so what? All this talk of needing to meet a price point that is less than the Air is silly - the iPad is a different machine that serves very different needs, and if the form factor does things no other device can do (which it does) then the comparable price points are irrelevant.
Those capabilities I described might be useful in other pro and semi-pro markets, as none of it is very specific to photography except the software, but I am not the person to judge. Except in architecture (my profession) and engineering, where one of these (esp ruggedized and with a better camera) would be great for site visits.
Thus I think there IS room for more capabilities in the iPad.
Beautiful reply - my words did not deserve such attention.
However, I would merely point you to the recent articles on Apple's use of cash to enable them to develop products as if "from the future" by paying for the development of factories capable of creating these products. I believe the demand would be great enough--even if we see a $199 markup for the "HD" models.
Apple has had a really, really decent cache of cash for a while. What "from the future" technology have they developed or deployed? They are a master integrator, but rarely (ever?) an original innovator at the fundamental level, in either software or hardware. In fact, they have never been found to even engage research at that level ... ever. To develop a display of that resolution at that size is simply outside their expertise. In fact, the best medical displays (one industry that requires such resolution on a good size display) do not have this kind of PPI, not close.
For the iPad to adopt double the current screen resolution, it will not come from Apple's own development effort. They'd simply take advantage of the fruits of someone else's R&D labors (as they have done historically). However, most of the companies that specialize in displays are amongst their competitors, and less likely to give this technology to Apple first. Furthermore, while LG has made noise earlier this year about advanced IPS displays, they have not divulged resolution specifications.
We should also remember that the "sources" of this rumor are the same as 7 months ago - Josh Topolsky and friends. Back then, they were at Engadget. Now they are at "This is My Next (rumor)". Back then, they were dead wrong. And, back then, they moderated their claims by saying the increase in resolution may not be double (i.e. 1.5 instead). How long before they start hedging this time?
I'm guessing it's iMovie renamed Final Cut Pro X for iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
It's Final Cut Studio 7 for the iPad - PSYCH!
LOL. A "pro" app for the iPad. Maybe they should tighten up that "pro" app for the Mac. Don't get me wrong, the iPad is the future and there are some great apps, it's just that anyone claiming to make a "pro" app for it is... well, ambitious at this stage.
Hah! It took me almost a minute to get the P-Body pun... Peabody... P-Body...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM
Thus I think there IS room for more capabilities in the iPad...
That was a decent post. Yes, eventually the iPad will have these capabilities to truly replace a laptop in many areas. More demanding fields like photo and video will take more time, but it will get there. There will of course be some verticals where the iPad will never be useful, but those will be very rare after five years of iPad evolution.
For the iPad to adopt double the current screen resolution, it will not come from Apple's own development effort. They'd simply take advantage of the fruits of someone else's R&D labors (as they have done historically). However, most of the companies that specialize in displays are amongst their competitors, and less likely to give this technology to Apple first. Furthermore, while LG has made noise earlier this year about advanced IPS displays, they have not divulged resolution specifications.
Have you forgotten the retina display on the iPhone 4? How did that happen, given your narrative? Why would it not happen for the iPad, given that it has already happened once before?
For the iPad to adopt double the current screen resolution, it will not come from Apple's own development effort. They'd simply take advantage of the fruits of someone else's R&D labors (as they have done historically). However, most of the companies that specialize in displays are amongst their competitors, and less likely to give this technology to Apple first.
You forgot that businesses like to make a profit. They don't care about competing with Apple if they can make a profit selling to Apple and competing. Because they end up richer that way.
However, most of the companies that specialize in displays are amongst their competitors, and less likely to give this technology to Apple first. Furthermore, while LG has made noise earlier this year about advanced IPS displays, they have not divulged resolution specifications.
A Retina Display would surely be the biggest, most easily marketable feature of a new iPad. Why waste it mid cycle with a iPad 2++??
Because year long product cycles don't necessarily make sense in highly dynamic markets, especially in the early stages when it really pays to deny new participants share. Oh and because Samsung are already demonstrating prototypes with Retina level displays and saying that they'll deliver retail product this year.
Also, who would pay $1000+ for an iPad 2++?? So Apple sells 500,000 of them in a year. Whoop dee doo! They sell 2,000,000 "normal" iPads a month!
You're making a big assumption regarding the price and the sales. It's quite plausible that an HD wifi model would be around the same price as the current Verizon model, and they were selling pretty darned well.
Absolutely denying the possibility of something when you lack hard evidence is as unreasonable as absolutely asserting the existence of something when you lack hard evidence.
Why it will get fragmented? It is the same iPad albeit with higher resolution screen (if that's true). Like iPhone apps on iPad, the pro apps would be treated the same. Plus, the resolution is scalable like what they did with iPhone 4.
Comments
It is probably some interface app to complement FCP X.
FCP X doesn't need an interface app, it needs to be a useful editing package. And FCP X on iPad is SOOO Pro! Get some video from some Bluetooth DSLR, cut it, then do what? "Share" it? On the iCloud? Don't expect Hollywood post cheques for that.
But a great gimmick for DoPs and directors to keep each other amused during a big shoot.
Maybe not, but I'd like to see a version of FCPX for the iPad that would allow me to use all the features of FCPX in preview mode, and when I'm back at my desktop I can render the full-res.
Using the iPad for quick edits and stuff on a project instead of working from memory is a big plus. Rendering the hires can always wait.
While I believe what you say is true, I have to wonder how you get the previews to work on? I don't edit video, so I honestly don't know.
For my photography, every RAW file has a JPEG embedded. So an iPad version of Aperture is a no brainer, just use the embedded JPEG for the preview image. Like with your video editing, Aperture can work in Preview mode. You can't make edits which would require decoding the RAW file, but you can do all the sorting, organizing, tagging, etc. That would require very little processing power. And even if you needed to decode the RAW file, that's easily within the capabilities of the iPad 2. For video, if you are working in the field, how would you get the files on the iPad and in a format that would work for your preview-mode work?
I assume working on video in preview mode would require more power than for working with photo previews? Also, I suspect you are much more dependent on precision selection working with your video, to select clips at the frame-level, etc. While we photographers love to look at our individual pixels, we don't often try to select individual pixels. Many adjustments are made to the entire photo, and even brush on adjustments cover regions of the photo.
Finally, what would be the market for a pro video app? The vast majority of users would have their needs served by iMovie on iPad. How many would be willing to pay a higher price to get more than iMovie offers? Whereas the current Pictures app is weak. Pathetic, really. And Aperture is an application which appeals to advanced amateurs in addition to pros, a much bigger market. So while I know you weren't comparing pro video vs pro photos possibilities, I have to believe that a pro photos (ie, Aperture) app is a far more likely possibility than a pro video app.
I can image that the only way to have a second kind of iPad is to have another OS.
I argued this with the original iPad, and was dismissed as an idiot.
So good luck, maybe you can do better here.
I think that it is possible you don't think that this is impossible. It is possible that I think I agree. While I think I agree it is possible, I think it would be possibly a very impressive engineering feat to manufacture such a relatively large LCD screen at the resolution 2048 by 1536 - ~ same # of pixels as the Cinema display but at more than twice the PPI. Possibly, the feat would be more than very impressive because the manufacturing yield would be much lower than that of the iPhone. Let's not even consider the video RAM (shared with main RAM in iOS devices), the graphics power needed, the battery ...
After considering the possibility of this, I think it is possible that I no longer think this is possible. But if I am wrong - this would not be a very impressive engineering feat; it would be stunning.
Beautiful reply - my words did not deserve such attention.
However, I would merely point you to the recent articles on Apple's use of cash to enable them to develop products as if "from the future" by paying for the development of factories capable of creating these products. I believe the demand would be great enough--even if we see a $199 markup for the "HD" models.
But a great gimmick for DoPs and directors to keep each other amused during a big shoot.
This could be more like it.
Also, Apple has to do this before Samsung's high-res tablet comes out, or at least near the same time.
http://www.technobolt.com/2011/05/13...etina-display/
(via znro monk, a commenter at thisismynext's story, which is the source for this AI story.)
The iPad2 has the best of its class GPU performance. An "iPad2 Pro" would only have mediocre GPU performance. And I don't think we will see the next big push in GPU performance before the transition to 28nm.
PS: The resistance of AppleInsider stuff to use proper math is really astonishing
Such as? What would make the iPad scream "PRO" to you, more than the fact that it's already being used by pros for professional work?
Well if I could figure that out I would have a job at Apple!
/Start foot in mouth
But let me try: re a single vertical market where Apple could make me very happy. I know this is just for me and my peers, and way out there (at least 2014-like), but I suspect others would like a device similar capabilities:
I just got back from a 10 day photo trip to Utah. I don't have an iPad yet. Thought about bringing my Macbook Pro to download/review/edit photos, but I was reluctant to risk leaving my primary computer in the trunk at trailheads, and it is too heavy to drag along climbing up slickrock, on multi-day backpacks, with limited battery life, etc. (also pretty useless during the actual shooting!) So all my shots stayed on memory cards and a portable card-reading disc drive, unreviewed, unedited, basically unseen, until I finally got home and could actually LOOK at them and start the real work. And then experience remorse for the shots I got wrong and didn't know it.
The iPad is a photographer's friend, and I hear it is great to take along on shoots, but the memory can max out pretty quick - I am not working in a studio where I can off-load files, and I am taking 18MP shots at up to 30 MB each in RAW format, x three or five exposures for each image (for HDR post-processing), and sometimes up to hundreds of images per day (see "Bryce Canyon"). So I might need 10-20+ GB for a single day of shooting, and my trip was 10 days. Plus if you are doing any editing en-route, you need more memory for multiple versions of image edits, scratch files and processing space for image editing software, etc. Even the 64GB iPad would likely be inadequate for that.
I would like to see an iPad Pro with significantly more memory (like Air's 265MB), more graphics processing capability, possibly much more ram for working with those monster image files (is it ram you need or is the flash memory fast enough?), retina display, seamless automatic upload ("it just works") from you DSLR camera - wifi is already coming to high-end cameras - , possibly some degree of ruggedization (water resistance?) for frequent use outdoors, at least 10 hours of battery life, ideally a screen that can be read in bright sunlight so I don't have to buy a 19th C photographer's hood, and superb editing software with pro capabilities including a serious HDR module.
I fantasize about Apple releasing a fully-featured image editing app (NOT an "Express" version or "Eazel" fingerpainting software for the iPad - what is Adobe thinking, that the iPad is a toy????). The software should have capabilities comparable to Photoshop circa 2006 or better, optimized for the iPad. Uh-oh, watch out Adobe! Of course Apple wouldn't ever be motivated to create something that leapfrogs an Adobe product, right?
That spec would make me scream Pro, and immediately buy one for my next photo trip. Of course I have no idea if any of that is technically feasible
And I expect my dream machine would cost $1500-2000, but so what? All this talk of needing to meet a price point that is less than the Air is silly - the iPad is a different machine that serves very different needs, and if the form factor does things no other device can do (which it does) then the comparable price points are irrelevant.
Those capabilities I described might be useful in other pro and semi-pro markets, as none of it is very specific to photography except the software, but I am not the person to judge. Except in architecture (my profession) and engineering, where one of these (esp ruggedized and with a better camera) would be great for site visits.
Thus I think there IS room for more capabilities in the iPad.
end foot in mouth/
Beautiful reply - my words did not deserve such attention.
However, I would merely point you to the recent articles on Apple's use of cash to enable them to develop products as if "from the future" by paying for the development of factories capable of creating these products. I believe the demand would be great enough--even if we see a $199 markup for the "HD" models.
Apple has had a really, really decent cache of cash for a while. What "from the future" technology have they developed or deployed? They are a master integrator, but rarely (ever?) an original innovator at the fundamental level, in either software or hardware. In fact, they have never been found to even engage research at that level ... ever. To develop a display of that resolution at that size is simply outside their expertise. In fact, the best medical displays (one industry that requires such resolution on a good size display) do not have this kind of PPI, not close.
For the iPad to adopt double the current screen resolution, it will not come from Apple's own development effort. They'd simply take advantage of the fruits of someone else's R&D labors (as they have done historically). However, most of the companies that specialize in displays are amongst their competitors, and less likely to give this technology to Apple first. Furthermore, while LG has made noise earlier this year about advanced IPS displays, they have not divulged resolution specifications.
We should also remember that the "sources" of this rumor are the same as 7 months ago - Josh Topolsky and friends. Back then, they were at Engadget. Now they are at "This is My Next (rumor)". Back then, they were dead wrong. And, back then, they moderated their claims by saying the increase in resolution may not be double (i.e. 1.5 instead). How long before they start hedging this time?
I'm guessing it's iMovie renamed Final Cut Pro X for iPad.
It's Final Cut Studio 7 for the iPad - PSYCH!
LOL. A "pro" app for the iPad. Maybe they should tighten up that "pro" app for the Mac.
Heck, even P-Body knows this rumor sucks.
Hah! It took me almost a minute to get the P-Body pun... Peabody... P-Body...
Thus I think there IS room for more capabilities in the iPad...
That was a decent post. Yes, eventually the iPad will have these capabilities to truly replace a laptop in many areas. More demanding fields like photo and video will take more time, but it will get there. There will of course be some verticals where the iPad will never be useful, but those will be very rare after five years of iPad evolution.
For the iPad to adopt double the current screen resolution, it will not come from Apple's own development effort. They'd simply take advantage of the fruits of someone else's R&D labors (as they have done historically). However, most of the companies that specialize in displays are amongst their competitors, and less likely to give this technology to Apple first. Furthermore, while LG has made noise earlier this year about advanced IPS displays, they have not divulged resolution specifications.
Have you forgotten the retina display on the iPhone 4? How did that happen, given your narrative? Why would it not happen for the iPad, given that it has already happened once before?
Usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb
The iPad already has USB. If you'd take a second from your spamming, you'd see that.
As to the iPad getting a standard USB-A, USB-B, Mini USB-A, Mini USB-B, or Micro USB port, it will NEVER HAPPEN.
For the iPad to adopt double the current screen resolution, it will not come from Apple's own development effort. They'd simply take advantage of the fruits of someone else's R&D labors (as they have done historically). However, most of the companies that specialize in displays are amongst their competitors, and less likely to give this technology to Apple first.
You forgot that businesses like to make a profit. They don't care about competing with Apple if they can make a profit selling to Apple and competing. Because they end up richer that way.
Apple has had a really, really decent cache of cash for a while. What "from the future" technology have they developed or deployed?
How's about all of them?
However, most of the companies that specialize in displays are amongst their competitors, and less likely to give this technology to Apple first. Furthermore, while LG has made noise earlier this year about advanced IPS displays, they have not divulged resolution specifications.
Read the article.
So, for all the people who *want* this to be true. What will be the "knock your socks off" feature of iPad 3 in 2012?
A Retina Display would surely be the biggest, most easily marketable feature of a new iPad. Why waste it mid cycle with a iPad 2++??
Also, who would pay $1000+ for an iPad 2++?? So Apple sells 500,000 of them in a year. Whoop dee doo! They sell 2,000,000 "normal" iPads a month!
A Retina Display would surely be the biggest, most easily marketable feature of a new iPad. Why waste it mid cycle with a iPad 2++??
Because year long product cycles don't necessarily make sense in highly dynamic markets, especially in the early stages when it really pays to deny new participants share. Oh and because Samsung are already demonstrating prototypes with Retina level displays and saying that they'll deliver retail product this year.
http://www.technobolt.com/2011/05/13...etina-display/
Also, who would pay $1000+ for an iPad 2++?? So Apple sells 500,000 of them in a year. Whoop dee doo! They sell 2,000,000 "normal" iPads a month!
You're making a big assumption regarding the price and the sales. It's quite plausible that an HD wifi model would be around the same price as the current Verizon model, and they were selling pretty darned well.
Absolutely denying the possibility of something when you lack hard evidence is as unreasonable as absolutely asserting the existence of something when you lack hard evidence.