I don't see the need for Apple to directly compete with Avid on the high end. Avids are large, cumbersome, expensive systems. FCP is in many ways the exact opposite.
Plus I cannot think of too many post houses who would be willing to give up their investment in Avid to switch to any other platform.
Not at this time, no. But, if Apple continues to support product creep, as they seem to be doing, that might change.
Since Final Cut can only be used on a Mac hardware sales cannot be completely divorced from the equation.
Yes, but it won't lead to hundreds of thousands of machines being sold yearly. Apple might sell a few more machines in this area yearly then they do now.
I think you both are close, but these tools allow Apple to have more content developed for iTV/iTS. There is a format war going on and this is a way for apple to attract more content makers to and keep current users in the Apple ecosystem. These sales will be many fold, with initial software sales and hardware sales, as well as the more lucrative, content sales while maintaining/growing its market dominance of apple as a downloaded media source.
Sorry, but there's nothing related to the format that original source content is in to getting the finished product onto the iTMS. Keep in mind that content owners/creators aren't going to create their content with just one medium/distribution channel in mind. The final product will be in a format that can be converted or compressed down to whatever format (Apple video, WMV, Mpg, etc) that they need to get it into as many possible sales channels.
And its interesting reading different schools of thoughts on upgrades. Reading the Adobe CS3 board, its all "I'm waiting until the bugs are worked out and reviews come in...". For FCP its "Man, I can't wait to get this!" Aren't video pros as concerned with upgrade issues as the graphics folks?
And its interesting reading different schools of thoughts on upgrades. Reading the Adobe CS3 board, its all "I'm waiting until the bugs are worked out and reviews come in...". For FCP its "Man, I can't wait to get this!" Aren't video pros as concerned with upgrade issues as the graphics folks?
I think Apple's track record for FCP upgrades are better that Adobe's with a few exceptions of course. I 've never had any issues upgrading and I'v done so across G4's G5's and the new MP's...
I didn't say that. I said that THESE products won't lead to more content for Apple's devices. There are enough tools to do that now. this will lead to the purchase of Apple tools to do it, because it might be easier, that's all.
Explain how tools aimed at TV and Movie Production isn't going to lead to content for Apple's devices? Then what the devil are these for?
Additionally, think why apple should continue a product that only contributes to 1-2% of total sales. There is almost no profit. These tools are to get street cred from the Video industry.
Sorry, but there's nothing related to the format that original source content is in to getting the finished product onto the iTMS. Keep in mind that content owners/creators aren't going to create their content with just one medium/distribution channel in mind. The final product will be in a format that can be converted or compressed down to whatever format (Apple video, WMV, Mpg, etc) that they need to get it into as many possible sales channels.
And its interesting reading different schools of thoughts on upgrades. Reading the Adobe CS3 board, its all "I'm waiting until the bugs are worked out and reviews come in...". For FCP its "Man, I can't wait to get this!" Aren't video pros as concerned with upgrade issues as the graphics folks?
Do you think that Avid is going to actively promote the iTV/iTMS formatting? NO! If apple wants people to contribute to their distribution system, Apple needs to give them tools that work for what THE CONTENT MAKERS want AND make it easy for that content to be converted into the a format for APPLE to distribute.
Do you think that Avid is going to actively promote the iTV/iTMS formatting?
I can agree in that Apple makes it convenient to create content in these formats. But the formats are nothing special to Apple in of themselves.
Apple has an iPod/AppleTV button to automatically export content. While in other applications you have to manually input the export format for iPod/AppleTV. But you don't need an Apple application to create content for iPod/AppleTV.
No application in a vertical market such as Final Cut Pro is going to have a huge impact when compared to consumer/entertainment application like iPod/iTunes.
I think when discussing impact one must apply the proper context. Within the vertical of audio/video production the new FCP will indeed cause on impact. Will that impact generate billions in new revenue. No. But the impact will be there nontheless. I know of plenty of people who bought Macs just to run Final Cut Pro. While overall they are a small fish in a big pond I'd rather have them aboard than have Macs being a wasteland of video apps.
"Apple has consistently been criticized for not having a way for pro editors to tackle high end projects, given the lack of tools allowing editors to work collaboratively and manage the workflow of big projects,"
The release of Final Cut Server is interesting - allowing workflow, media management, and cross platform collaboration.
Does anyone know much about this technology?
Is this a technology that we may see released for cross platform collaboration with iLife/iWork later this year?
I'm wondering about workflow between iPhones and home Mac and work PC with integrated scheduling etc? and what about managing your raw photos and movies across your network in new and useful ways?
I really don't know if the background technologies developed for Final Cut Server have a cross over. Anyone know?
The release of Final Cut Server is interesting - allowing workflow, media management, and cross platform collaboration.
Does anyone know much about this technology?
Is this a technology that we may see released for cross platform collaboration with iLife/iWork later this year?
I'm wondering about workflow between iPhones and home Mac and work PC with integrated scheduling etc? and what about managing your raw photos and movies across your network in new and useful ways?
I really don't know if the background technologies developed for Final Cut Server have a cross over. Anyone know?
Greg
This product has been around a while and had a good reputation. Search for Proximity Artbox and you'll find out more about it's capabilities. Apple made a good choice to acquire them because it keeps Final Cut Pro as a choice for Broadcast Pro and those who need to work in teams. I only see the product getting better once Apple can put more custom work into it ..the same goes for Color.
As for iWork/iLife collaboration look no further than iChat Theater for that task. While it may not be as sexy as Final Cut Server iChat Theater is a great start for application collaboration IMO.
Thanks for the info, I didn't realise Apple had bought that. Makes me wonder why podcasts like twim were hoping for media management as a new feature but not sure, if/when it was already known that Apple had bought this!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
As for iWork/iLife collaboration look no further than iChat Theater for that task. While it may not be as sexy as Final Cut Server iChat Theater is a great start for application collaboration IMO.
While I think that iChat Theatre will allow us to show other people what we're looking at on our screen (whatever that may be), it's not the same as implementing a workflow, allocating tasks etc.
Managing workflow (& other non-realtime events) as well as managing my photos and videos better are my main interests. I assume Final Cut Server does this kind of thing (will keep reading up on prior product). (edit: Though Final Cut Server does it in a very specific context/field! Not for regular Mac & iLife users)
People are switching to Final Cut versus other applications more and more and more. With Final Cuts support for 4K, I think FCS2 will be a pretty big impact.
Explain how tools aimed at TV and Movie Production isn't going to lead to content for Apple's devices? Then what the devil are these for?
Additionally, think why apple should continue a product that only contributes to 1-2% of total sales. There is almost no profit. These tools are to get street cred from the Video industry.
Considering that there obviously already ARE tools to do that very thing (otherwise there would BE no content on these devices!), it's you who must explain how this would lead to content that is already there, and is expanding all the time.
The reason why there isn't even more video content at this time is not technical, but contractual. How will this change that?
With Final Cuts support for 4K, I think FCS2 will be a pretty big impact.
I've only seen that FCP supports RED codec. I haven't see where it explicitly says FCP supports 4K. It doesn't say that anywhere in the support documentation. If it really did there would a lot be more talk about it.
At this point there isn't any easy or cheap way to even view 4K. Sony's projector is the only way.
Considering that there obviously already ARE tools to do that very thing (otherwise there would BE no content on these devices!), it's you who must explain how this would lead to content that is already there, and is expanding all the time.
The reason why there isn't even more video content at this time is not technical, but contractual. How will this change that?
Ok scenario 1:
Content Maker: I want to add my new movie to iTS.
Apple: What is your source material in?
CM: I use Avids station.
Apple: My those are nice, but you have to buy this tool. But we don't support that software, you have to talk to them.
CM: Oh, I am a poor independent label. Bye.
Scenario 2:
CM: I want to add my new movie to iTS.
Apple: What is your source material in?
CM: I just bought a, cheaper than Avid, MacPro with FCP.
Apple: Great, you are done. We support direct transfers of FCP projects or our new native 4K.
It is the apple ease of access through ease of use that will expand the number of people considering using iTS.
Apple: My those are nice, but you have to buy this tool. But we don't support that software, you have to talk to them.
CM: Oh, I am a poor independent label. Bye.
Scenario 2:
CM: I want to add my new movie to iTS.
Apple: What is your source material in?
CM: I just bought a, cheaper than Avid, MacPro with FCP.
Apple: Great, you are done. We support direct transfers of FCP projects or our new native 4K.
It is the apple ease of access through ease of use that will expand the number of people considering using iTS.
Done. QED.
Sorry, doesn't wash. You really think apple's going to basically push away people because they use some other software. That's a way to really endure your iTMS to video professionals. Tell them you only support your format.
And who cares about the source material. Its the finished product's format that matters.
And who cares about the source material. Its the finished product's format that matters.
You proved my point exactly. If your source material can't be put on iTS it is a done deal. If you choose a tool that can't get to iTS acceptable formats. FCP works with most formats plus makes it easier to integrate to iTS. Avid works with the same formats, and not iTS. I am not talking about the standard 720p. I am talking about the iTS DRM. Avid can't do this. FCP can.
You proved my point exactly. If your source material can't be put on iTS it is a done deal. If you choose a tool that can't get to iTS acceptable formats. FCP works with most formats plus makes it easier to integrate to iTS. Avid works with the same formats, and not iTS. I am not talking about the standard 720p. I am talking about the iTS DRM. Avid can't do this. FCP can.
ALL source material can be put up on iTunes. Why? Because all source material has a path to that end. Do you think that Avid only supports their own working files? Of course not. They have to support all of the relevant standards, and all of those have a clear path to iTunes.
Apple: My those are nice, but you have to buy this tool. But we don't support that software, you have to talk to them.
CM: Oh, I am a poor independent label. Bye.
Scenario 2:
CM: I want to add my new movie to iTS.
Apple: What is your source material in?
CM: I just bought a, cheaper than Avid, MacPro with FCP.
Apple: Great, you are done. We support direct transfers of FCP projects or our new native 4K.
It is the apple ease of access through ease of use that will expand the number of people considering using iTS.
Done. QED.
This didn't come up on my mail app, so I'm getting to it after my previous post. But, my reply to that is the same here. But, I'll elaborate. You are setting up a red herring.
Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, with much material appearing on iTunes directly, or for all of Apple's machines indirectly, much of it having been worked on Avids, you insist on saying something that isn't correct.
I can guarantee that if any producer had a project that would be done on an Avid, and that project couldn't get to iTunes because of it, said producer would think very hard about moving that project to a different editing platform.
Perhaps you haven't heard, but there is now the four screen requirement for productions.
1 The movie screen
2 The Tv screen
3 The computer screen
4 The cell phone, iPod (or other portable players)
If Avid can't guarantee that projects will be able to eventually run on all four screens, they are screwed!
Apple: My those are nice, but you have to buy this tool. But we don't support that software, you have to talk to them.
CM: Oh, I am a poor independent label. Bye.
How does a "poor independent label" get to use an Avid station? Assuming such a situation exists, couldn't the Avid be set to output some file format that is recognized by Quicktime?
Comments
I don't see the need for Apple to directly compete with Avid on the high end. Avids are large, cumbersome, expensive systems. FCP is in many ways the exact opposite.
Plus I cannot think of too many post houses who would be willing to give up their investment in Avid to switch to any other platform.
Not at this time, no. But, if Apple continues to support product creep, as they seem to be doing, that might change.
Since Final Cut can only be used on a Mac hardware sales cannot be completely divorced from the equation.
Yes, but it won't lead to hundreds of thousands of machines being sold yearly. Apple might sell a few more machines in this area yearly then they do now.
I think you both are close, but these tools allow Apple to have more content developed for iTV/iTS. There is a format war going on and this is a way for apple to attract more content makers to and keep current users in the Apple ecosystem. These sales will be many fold, with initial software sales and hardware sales, as well as the more lucrative, content sales while maintaining/growing its market dominance of apple as a downloaded media source.
Sorry, but there's nothing related to the format that original source content is in to getting the finished product onto the iTMS. Keep in mind that content owners/creators aren't going to create their content with just one medium/distribution channel in mind. The final product will be in a format that can be converted or compressed down to whatever format (Apple video, WMV, Mpg, etc) that they need to get it into as many possible sales channels.
And its interesting reading different schools of thoughts on upgrades. Reading the Adobe CS3 board, its all "I'm waiting until the bugs are worked out and reviews come in...". For FCP its "Man, I can't wait to get this!" Aren't video pros as concerned with upgrade issues as the graphics folks?
And its interesting reading different schools of thoughts on upgrades. Reading the Adobe CS3 board, its all "I'm waiting until the bugs are worked out and reviews come in...". For FCP its "Man, I can't wait to get this!" Aren't video pros as concerned with upgrade issues as the graphics folks?
I think Apple's track record for FCP upgrades are better that Adobe's with a few exceptions of course. I 've never had any issues upgrading and I'v done so across G4's G5's and the new MP's...
I didn't say that. I said that THESE products won't lead to more content for Apple's devices. There are enough tools to do that now. this will lead to the purchase of Apple tools to do it, because it might be easier, that's all.
Explain how tools aimed at TV and Movie Production isn't going to lead to content for Apple's devices? Then what the devil are these for?
Additionally, think why apple should continue a product that only contributes to 1-2% of total sales. There is almost no profit. These tools are to get street cred from the Video industry.
Sorry, but there's nothing related to the format that original source content is in to getting the finished product onto the iTMS. Keep in mind that content owners/creators aren't going to create their content with just one medium/distribution channel in mind. The final product will be in a format that can be converted or compressed down to whatever format (Apple video, WMV, Mpg, etc) that they need to get it into as many possible sales channels.
And its interesting reading different schools of thoughts on upgrades. Reading the Adobe CS3 board, its all "I'm waiting until the bugs are worked out and reviews come in...". For FCP its "Man, I can't wait to get this!" Aren't video pros as concerned with upgrade issues as the graphics folks?
Do you think that Avid is going to actively promote the iTV/iTMS formatting? NO! If apple wants people to contribute to their distribution system, Apple needs to give them tools that work for what THE CONTENT MAKERS want AND make it easy for that content to be converted into the a format for APPLE to distribute.
Do you think that Avid is going to actively promote the iTV/iTMS formatting?
I can agree in that Apple makes it convenient to create content in these formats. But the formats are nothing special to Apple in of themselves.
Apple has an iPod/AppleTV button to automatically export content. While in other applications you have to manually input the export format for iPod/AppleTV. But you don't need an Apple application to create content for iPod/AppleTV.
I think when discussing impact one must apply the proper context. Within the vertical of audio/video production the new FCP will indeed cause on impact. Will that impact generate billions in new revenue. No. But the impact will be there nontheless. I know of plenty of people who bought Macs just to run Final Cut Pro. While overall they are a small fish in a big pond I'd rather have them aboard than have Macs being a wasteland of video apps.
"Apple has consistently been criticized for not having a way for pro editors to tackle high end projects, given the lack of tools allowing editors to work collaboratively and manage the workflow of big projects,"
The release of Final Cut Server is interesting - allowing workflow, media management, and cross platform collaboration.
Does anyone know much about this technology?
Is this a technology that we may see released for cross platform collaboration with iLife/iWork later this year?
I'm wondering about workflow between iPhones and home Mac and work PC with integrated scheduling etc? and what about managing your raw photos and movies across your network in new and useful ways?
I really don't know if the background technologies developed for Final Cut Server have a cross over. Anyone know?
The release of Final Cut Server is interesting - allowing workflow, media management, and cross platform collaboration.
Does anyone know much about this technology?
Is this a technology that we may see released for cross platform collaboration with iLife/iWork later this year?
I'm wondering about workflow between iPhones and home Mac and work PC with integrated scheduling etc? and what about managing your raw photos and movies across your network in new and useful ways?
I really don't know if the background technologies developed for Final Cut Server have a cross over. Anyone know?
Greg
This product has been around a while and had a good reputation. Search for Proximity Artbox and you'll find out more about it's capabilities. Apple made a good choice to acquire them because it keeps Final Cut Pro as a choice for Broadcast Pro and those who need to work in teams. I only see the product getting better once Apple can put more custom work into it ..the same goes for Color.
As for iWork/iLife collaboration look no further than iChat Theater for that task. While it may not be as sexy as Final Cut Server iChat Theater is a great start for application collaboration IMO.
As for iWork/iLife collaboration look no further than iChat Theater for that task. While it may not be as sexy as Final Cut Server iChat Theater is a great start for application collaboration IMO.
While I think that iChat Theatre will allow us to show other people what we're looking at on our screen (whatever that may be), it's not the same as implementing a workflow, allocating tasks etc.
Managing workflow (& other non-realtime events) as well as managing my photos and videos better are my main interests. I assume Final Cut Server does this kind of thing (will keep reading up on prior product). (edit: Though Final Cut Server does it in a very specific context/field! Not for regular Mac & iLife users)
Explain how tools aimed at TV and Movie Production isn't going to lead to content for Apple's devices? Then what the devil are these for?
Additionally, think why apple should continue a product that only contributes to 1-2% of total sales. There is almost no profit. These tools are to get street cred from the Video industry.
Considering that there obviously already ARE tools to do that very thing (otherwise there would BE no content on these devices!), it's you who must explain how this would lead to content that is already there, and is expanding all the time.
The reason why there isn't even more video content at this time is not technical, but contractual. How will this change that?
With Final Cuts support for 4K, I think FCS2 will be a pretty big impact.
I've only seen that FCP supports RED codec. I haven't see where it explicitly says FCP supports 4K. It doesn't say that anywhere in the support documentation. If it really did there would a lot be more talk about it.
At this point there isn't any easy or cheap way to even view 4K. Sony's projector is the only way.
Considering that there obviously already ARE tools to do that very thing (otherwise there would BE no content on these devices!), it's you who must explain how this would lead to content that is already there, and is expanding all the time.
The reason why there isn't even more video content at this time is not technical, but contractual. How will this change that?
Ok scenario 1:
Content Maker: I want to add my new movie to iTS.
Apple: What is your source material in?
CM: I use Avids station.
Apple: My those are nice, but you have to buy this tool. But we don't support that software, you have to talk to them.
CM: Oh, I am a poor independent label. Bye.
Scenario 2:
CM: I want to add my new movie to iTS.
Apple: What is your source material in?
CM: I just bought a, cheaper than Avid, MacPro with FCP.
Apple: Great, you are done. We support direct transfers of FCP projects or our new native 4K.
It is the apple ease of access through ease of use that will expand the number of people considering using iTS.
Done. QED.
Ok scenario 1:
Content Maker: I want to add my new movie to iTS.
Apple: What is your source material in?
CM: I use Avids station.
Apple: My those are nice, but you have to buy this tool. But we don't support that software, you have to talk to them.
CM: Oh, I am a poor independent label. Bye.
Scenario 2:
CM: I want to add my new movie to iTS.
Apple: What is your source material in?
CM: I just bought a, cheaper than Avid, MacPro with FCP.
Apple: Great, you are done. We support direct transfers of FCP projects or our new native 4K.
It is the apple ease of access through ease of use that will expand the number of people considering using iTS.
Done. QED.
Sorry, doesn't wash. You really think apple's going to basically push away people because they use some other software. That's a way to really endure your iTMS to video professionals. Tell them you only support your format.
And who cares about the source material. Its the finished product's format that matters.
And who cares about the source material. Its the finished product's format that matters.
You proved my point exactly. If your source material can't be put on iTS it is a done deal. If you choose a tool that can't get to iTS acceptable formats. FCP works with most formats plus makes it easier to integrate to iTS. Avid works with the same formats, and not iTS. I am not talking about the standard 720p. I am talking about the iTS DRM. Avid can't do this. FCP can.
You proved my point exactly. If your source material can't be put on iTS it is a done deal. If you choose a tool that can't get to iTS acceptable formats. FCP works with most formats plus makes it easier to integrate to iTS. Avid works with the same formats, and not iTS. I am not talking about the standard 720p. I am talking about the iTS DRM. Avid can't do this. FCP can.
ALL source material can be put up on iTunes. Why? Because all source material has a path to that end. Do you think that Avid only supports their own working files? Of course not. They have to support all of the relevant standards, and all of those have a clear path to iTunes.
Ok scenario 1:
Content Maker: I want to add my new movie to iTS.
Apple: What is your source material in?
CM: I use Avids station.
Apple: My those are nice, but you have to buy this tool. But we don't support that software, you have to talk to them.
CM: Oh, I am a poor independent label. Bye.
Scenario 2:
CM: I want to add my new movie to iTS.
Apple: What is your source material in?
CM: I just bought a, cheaper than Avid, MacPro with FCP.
Apple: Great, you are done. We support direct transfers of FCP projects or our new native 4K.
It is the apple ease of access through ease of use that will expand the number of people considering using iTS.
Done. QED.
This didn't come up on my mail app, so I'm getting to it after my previous post. But, my reply to that is the same here. But, I'll elaborate. You are setting up a red herring.
Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, with much material appearing on iTunes directly, or for all of Apple's machines indirectly, much of it having been worked on Avids, you insist on saying something that isn't correct.
I can guarantee that if any producer had a project that would be done on an Avid, and that project couldn't get to iTunes because of it, said producer would think very hard about moving that project to a different editing platform.
Perhaps you haven't heard, but there is now the four screen requirement for productions.
1 The movie screen
2 The Tv screen
3 The computer screen
4 The cell phone, iPod (or other portable players)
If Avid can't guarantee that projects will be able to eventually run on all four screens, they are screwed!
Ok scenario 1:
Content Maker: I want to add my new movie to iTS.
Apple: What is your source material in?
CM: I use Avids station.
Apple: My those are nice, but you have to buy this tool. But we don't support that software, you have to talk to them.
CM: Oh, I am a poor independent label. Bye.
How does a "poor independent label" get to use an Avid station? Assuming such a situation exists, couldn't the Avid be set to output some file format that is recognized by Quicktime?