iMovie 3.0, and Sherlock

[MacRumors]

MacOS Rumors (http://www.macosrumors.com) reports that iMovie 3.0 is in the works, and due in November:

Among the many new features will be much-asked-for widescreen format support, to complement the expanding family of wide-screen displays on Apple computers - along with another much-requested feature, Chapter Marks.

They also hint that Sherlock may integrate with .Mac -- as an Apple Web Portal.

[vniow]

Um.....................yay!

[nickmcghie]

I hope they improved the audio editing features and flexibilty in titling.

[Phaedrus]

I'm curious exactly what sort "portal" would result from folding Sherlock into .Mac? The traditional idea of a portal accessible by a browser makes sense to me--though I have never had use for one and prefer to see a minimalistic Google page on launching my browser (Chimera mostly)--but Sherlock as a portal I do not understand. Would this mean that I could access everything from "Backup" to "Homepage" via Sherlock's Toolbar? Actually, as I think about it, it begins to make sense. Consider the layout of the mac.com page: within the brushed-metal border on the top of the page sit icons representing the seven .Mac services. These icons could easily be placed into Sherlock's Toolbar next to "pictures," "stocks," "movies," etc. This would be a small innovation, but nevertheless a nice one--though I can't imagine even the combination of Sherlock and .Mac services in one utility serving as a starting point for most users; that is to say, it would be too sparse for the portal-dependent on the one hand, and too restrictive for those comfortable with search-engines and bookmarks on the other. If Apple, however, were to take the additional step of making Sherlock and .Mac services accessible as icons on the customizable toolbar of an Apple-branded browser, I think that many of us, in the second camp at least, would be quite pleased.

[bidge]

This is an update I'm really looking forward to

[Bilbo_Baggins]

At least as interesting as the above is the mention of MOT G5 processors being widely available by early 2003 and the likelihood of Apple's receiving both IBM and MOT chips during 2003.

From the Macrumours note

Don't count Motorola out of game just yet as far as future Mac processors are concerned. Although Apple and IBM continue to work on a solution that some have dubbed GPUL (Giga-Processor Ultra Lite - although this is most certainly not the name anyone involved is using; certain rumormongers just made it up, as they have numerous other "codenames"), Motorola apparently has plans to supply Apple with hundreds of thousands of PowerPC 8500-family processors beginning in early 2003.

Given that IBM won't even be disclosing details of its desktop POWER4-based CPUs that may be used in Apple G5 systems until later this month, we think that perhaps the first G5s might be PPC 85xx chips after all. This is based on the fact that with previous Mac processor introductions, historically new CPUs don't ship until roughly one year after they are announced in a microprocessor forum.

Presently we are waiting for IBM's discussions of the new desktop CPU at the forum later in the month to draw any new conclusions, but it looks as if the G5 family might not be one lineage of chips from one company -- Apple may be attempting to increase the competition between IBM and Motorola by using both POWER4 and PPC 8500-based CPUs....

[NoWonder]

Well, I was afraid .mac was going to go this way. First, the backup software that X should have to begin with. Next, iSync. Now rumors of iPhoto and sherlock.

Now, not only will we have to pay a premium for our hardware, we will now have to pay an annual tax to use the formerly free functionality.

I've said it before.... I don't mind paying a flat fee for the software I need, but I will NOT pay a yearly fee for software. I will NOT use software that reports back to apple every time I use it. I realize that reoccuring income is the holy grail on industry today, but for the amount of money I pay for these tools, i want to know they will keep running in their current form even if the company that supplys them goes out of business.

Also, I truely feel sorry for the majority of people out there without broadband. How about the powerbook owners? Does being away from the phone line mean you loose half the functionality of your computer? Is that fair?

--nw

[P-Worm]

Originally posted by NoWonder
Well, I was afraid .mac was going to go this way. First, the backup software that X should have to begin with. Next, iSync. Now rumors of iPhoto and sherlock.

Now, not only will we have to pay a premium for our hardware, we will now have to pay an annual tax to use the formerly free functionality.

I've said it before.... I don't mind paying a flat fee for the software I need, but I will NOT pay a yearly fee for software. I will NOT use software that reports back to apple every time I use it. I realize that reoccuring income is the holy grail on industry today, but for the amount of money I pay for these tools, i want to know they will keep running in their current form even if the company that supplys them goes out of business.

Also, I truely feel sorry for the majority of people out there without broadband. How about the powerbook owners? Does being away from the phone line mean you loose half the functionality of your computer? Is that fair?

--nw

Look I've said it before....You are not losing anything from all of the free apps without .mac. You just aren't getting all of the new features. I don't have .mac and I'm excited for iMovie 3 to come out. Chapter Markers for iDVD? I can't wait! Also widescreen support is a huge plus. iMovie isn't going to take Final Cut Pro from my use, but it is nice to see that the app that got me hooked on editing is finally get the update that it deserves. So count your blessings. This is FREE software. You don't have to use .mac to use it and neither do I.

P-Worm

[theaz]

Agreed. Apple is still making freebie software, but they are also adding a tier of paid functionality.

Originally posted by P-Worm


You are not losing anything from all of the free apps without .mac. You just aren't getting all of the new features...

P-Worm

[RBMaraman]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Apple charge people to upgrade to iMovie 2 from iMovie 1? If you go to the Apple Store and search for iMovie, a download version of iMovie 2 comes up for $49. Do you think we will have to pay for iMovie 3? Or will we get it for free since they now include it with all machines and with the OS?

[P-Worm]

Originally posted by RBMaraman
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Apple charge people to upgrade to iMovie 2 from iMovie 1? If you go to the Apple Store and search for iMovie, a download version of iMovie 2 comes up for $49. Do you think we will have to pay for iMovie 3? Or will we get it for free since they now include it with all machines and with the OS?

Hmmm...that's a good question. I think that it would be free because that paid upgrade thing came out before all of the free apps started happening. But if it is pay to upgrade, I know that a whole bunch of people would complain. And who can blame them? How is anyone supposed to come up with that huge lump sum of $49? :rolleyes:

At least I know that I would pay, would you guys?

P-Worm

[Macmaniac]

I would pay, but I don't think Apple should charge for and update. With all these companies that Apple has been assimilating, I would not be supriesed to see more advanced audio and video tools for iMovie.
Besides that point I love iMovie, it is great for average person who wnats to get their feet wet. If you have seen my MWNY movie I used iMovie for the whole thing and it looks really good(In my opinion) its so easy to make awsome pro looking movies with iMovie. Even my TV teacher was impressed with how I timed scence changes with the music. I can't wait :)

[JW Pepper]

I don't believe the bit about widescreen support I believe that this would be an iDVD function. I can generate 16:9 material whith my DV camera and edit it in iMovie, but I can't tell iMovie which source material is 16:9 and what is 4:3. Editing 16:9 material in iMovie is OK except it appears squashed, and that is fine as iMovie presents in 4:3, but iDVD needs to tell the TV that it is 16:9 so that the TV will un-squash it.

It would also seem logical that chapters are created in iDVD rather than iMovie to me.


I hope that there is some truth in this because i only use 16:9 material and at the moment any home movies are authored with the wrong aspect ratio set on the DVD.

[medea]

If Apple charges then it wont really be an "update" but instead a new version of the program, and it sounds like a version I would pay $49 for.

[RBMaraman]

I would definitely pay for an iMovie update. But, I really do hope they are smart enough to make it a free update. I would love to see more transitions and titles added, as well as some improvements in audio features. Even though I do use Final Cut Pro for most of my editing, I use iMovie on my iBook because of hard drive space issues. iMovie 2 is great, but iMovie 3 would be awesome.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by JW Pepper
It would also seem logical that chapters are created in iDVD rather than iMovie to me.


well assuming idvd doesn't already allow for chapters (i only use it for very simple dvds, and dvd sp for more complicated ones)... then i'm guessing an update would fix that...

however, it does make sense that imovie would allow for adding chapter markers which could then be exported to idvd. that way, you can add them in a much easier interface (the video editor, not the dvd editor) on the timeline system... they recently added that functionality with fcp/dvd sp and though i haven't used it yet, i've spent a decent amount of time messing with creating chapters in dvd sp and it's not super exact. whereas with fcp, it's a lot easier (creating markers)...

so that should be good