PDA

View Full Version : Final Cut Pro 4




MacRumors
Feb 24, 2003, 02:09 AM
LoopRumors claims (http://www.looprumors.com/) Final Cut Pro 4 will make an appearance at NAB in Las Vegas in April and reports FW800 support, support for 24fps, improved support for HDTV, built-in 3-D titles, hundreds of effects and transitions, several bug fixes, and overall speed performances

ThinkSecret first reported (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/finalcutpro4.html) on features from the upcoming Final Cut Pro in November 2002.

Meanwhile, an anonymous reader claims that FCP 4 will indeed by out in April and "possibly feature some low end features of Shake".



michaelyoung
Feb 24, 2003, 02:38 AM
"an anonymous reader claims that FCP 4 will indeed by out in April and "possibly feature some low end features of Shake"

That is pretty vague. Since Shake is a compositing program you could just as well say that Final Cut is adding more compositing features. Shake is a node based program as well that would very very hard to introduce into the Final Cut interface.

Also, the "low end" Shake project is DEAD. It is not going to happen. The folks that had been working on it have disbanded and are out in the world job hunting. Trust me.

So for now we will have to live with the original Shake. Which is pretty amazing.

Also, from Looprumors:

the most important added feature is support for FireWire 800.

Most important? While it is welcome and would drive adoption of FW800 there is no way that this is the most important feature. No way. Why?

Other features said to be implemented are support for 24fps, improved support for HDTV, built-in 3-D titles,

These are much more important. Oh, and they already have 3d titles.

hundreds of effects and transitions, several bug fixes, and overall speed performances

Super-vague. And, "hundreds" of effects?

I am losing interest in Looprumors. They have great graphics but they do seem to be "fishing" a lot of the time.

Bear
Feb 24, 2003, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by Macrumors
LoopRumors claims (http://www.looprumors.com/) Final Cut Pro 4 will make an appearance at NAB in Las Vegas in April and reports FW800 support, support for 24fps, improved support for HDTV, built-in 3-D titles, hundreds of effects and transitions, several bug fixes, and overall speed performances

Add support for FW800 in what way? Wouldn't that be something the OS has to support?

What LoopRumors claims as new features looks like something that would be easy to guess at. Maybe it is based on real information, but with FW800 being tossed in the feature list, it makes this rumor look a little suspicious.

748s
Feb 24, 2003, 06:04 AM
WOW!!! i wonder if looprumors read my posts here about nab being the place for a fcp release and not at a macworld. funny thing is, the word around, now, is that fcp4 may not be ready for an april release date.

Sol
Feb 24, 2003, 07:34 AM
FireWire 800 would be a big deal because there is no software in the market that can do that yet. I hope that the extra speed of FW800 will mean uncompressed video without a PCI card.

Back to Final Cut Pro 4, NAB would be a good choice for the debut, not because it was that long ago since FCP 3 came out but because the G5 will need its own native version and now would be a good time to start work on FCP 5.

MisterMe
Feb 24, 2003, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Sol
FireWire 800 would be a big deal because there is no software in the market that can do that yet. I hope that the extra speed of FW800 will mean uncompressed video without a PCI card.

....Doesn't MacOS X 10.2.4 support FireWire 800 and isn't that software?

mifro
Feb 24, 2003, 08:13 AM
There are currently two "Final Cut Pro X" books listed at amazon.com:

Final Cut Pro X for Dummies (May 2003) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764537539/qid=1046095772/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2430024-6080008?v=glance&s=books

Final Cut Pro "X" Bible (June 26, 2003)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/076454053X/qid=1046095832/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-2430024-6080008?v=glance&s=books

I guess we will see an update to FCP in the second quarter.

iJon
Feb 24, 2003, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by mifro
There are currently two "Final Cut Pro X" books listed at amazon.com:

Final Cut Pro X for Dummies (May 2003) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764537539/qid=1046095772/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2430024-6080008?v=glance&s=books

Final Cut Pro "X" Bible (June 26, 2003)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/076454053X/qid=1046095832/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-2430024-6080008?v=glance&s=books

I guess we will see an update to FCP in the second quarter.
you think apple would let a book company know of a new version, i think not.

iJon

Bear
Feb 24, 2003, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by iJon
you think apple would let a book company know of a new version, i think not.

iJon
Actually it is a somewhat standard practice for a book or two to be written in coordination with the development of a new version of software.

Haven't you ever noticed (for instance) how fast PhotoShop 7 books were available after its release?

Ambrose Chapel
Feb 24, 2003, 08:38 AM
Actually it is a somewhat standard practice for a book or two to be written in coordination with the development of a new version of software.

That iLife book was announced at MWSF, just to reinforce this point....

iJon
Feb 24, 2003, 10:15 AM
ok ok, you guys shut me out. guess i thought apple would make it pretty secret, i guess they have to keep a tight leash on the book people. you were right and i was wrong.

iJon

michaelyoung
Feb 24, 2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Sol
FireWire 800 would be a big deal because there is no software in the market that can do that yet. I hope that the extra speed of FW800 will mean uncompressed video without a PCI card.


Software that can "do" FW800? What does that mean? As of now it will just mean faster tranfer and read times.

As for uncompressed video. Not likely. "Uncompressed" video still needs some sort of compression and why would they work on a whole new compression to support that? Because you need fast and wide drives. Plus the ONLY decks that have firewire are DV decks so you would have uncompressed DV.
And you need a ton of space.
With the quality of DV the average (non-broadcast) user does not need uncompressed...and there are great uncompressed cards for about a grand if you do need it.


Better uses for FW800:

4 channel simultaneous audio capture/output. (this is needed).

Fibre-Share networking.

badhorsie777
Feb 24, 2003, 01:32 PM
I'm not a video-editor-type-guy, but I read that FW800 was able to transmit video and audio along very long fire"wires"(?) And stay digital with noad/da business. I work with audio all the time, and this seems, from my level of understanding, to be a very interesting feature. Would this mean the ability to record live footage directly into FCP4? The apple site hinted at this sort of application of the technology.

A very interested nerd,
Badhorsie777

michaelyoung
Feb 24, 2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by badhorsie777
I' I read that FW800 was able to.. stay digital with noad/da business... Would this mean the ability to record live footage directly into FCP4?

The firewire would have to he connected to something that has a firewire port. This would likely be a camera or a deck and that is where the analog to digital conversion would happen. FW800 couldnt change this. DV is not only a tape format it is a compression. Any time you have video on a drive it needs to be compressed (even if it is "uncompressed video"). This compression currently is done with a DV chip (in your camera or converter). In the case of uncompressed it is done on a PCI card.



You can record live into final cut now. If you use "capture now."

MacFan25
Feb 24, 2003, 05:06 PM
Does anyone know when Final Cut Pro 3 came out?

FCPPro
Feb 24, 2003, 05:31 PM
Like others here, I find the 'rumor' to be so broad as to assure they will be correct on at least one count.

As for Firewire 800, that's hardware. And like most everything else about FCP, it'll work with whatever hardware you manage to hook it into to; Firewire, SCSI, Fibre.

If Firewire 800 is going to make any splash it'll be if it's incorporated into a tape deck... like a highly compressed HD deck.

Some things that the pros will be concerned about are: 4 channels of audio I/O, improved Media Management, MultiCam functionality, improved OMF support, better compatability between FCP and DVD Studio Pro, hopefully a rewritten code base to improve stability of the software and integrate it more tightly into OS X, perhaps even a management tool for simultaneously sharing media between multiple FCP stations (several third party vendors are also working on this, but I'd like to see more tightly integrated into FCP).

FCPPro
Feb 24, 2003, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by MacFan25
Does anyone know when Final Cut Pro 3 came out?

December 2001

GeneR
Feb 24, 2003, 06:37 PM
I sure hope that it (or FCP5) will give the user the ability to export the EDLs to render farms to get all the rendering done over a network. If that happens, I'd be pretty happy.

:D

michaelyoung
Feb 24, 2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by GeneR
I sure hope that it (or FCP5) will give the user the ability to export the EDLs to render farms to get all the rendering done over a network. If that happens, I'd be pretty happy.

:D

Are there programs that renderfarm to video from video?

The only apps that I have used that renderfarm are either 3d or are using image sequences. I have never heard of video to video renderfarm.

spacepower
Feb 24, 2003, 08:31 PM
How many people posting on this thread have ever even used FCP???

I am guessing not many.

People who are saying FW800 is not important:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
the most important added feature is support for FireWire 800.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Most important? While it is welcome and would drive adoption of FW800 there is no way that this is the most important feature. No way. Why?
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other features said to be implemented are support for 24fps, improved support for HDTV, built-in 3-D titles,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"These are much more important. Oh, and they already have 3d titles."

hmm, the future of HDTV could be on FW800 and FW1600 cables. Apple has a chance to make FW an important standard in the Post Production world.

Go :
http://www.panasonic.com/PBDS/subcat/Products/cams_ccorders/specs/s_aj-hdc27v.html

and checkout the specs for Panny's most popular HD Camera(1280x720)
6.7:1 compression
100Mbps bit rate.

basically this HDTV signal could be sent over FW400. But transferring from camera to cpu to hard disk would be 200Mbps plus, so doubtful Panny would put FW400 on HDTV decks and HDTV cameras.

If any of you recall, Panny and apple made announcements last spring to work on firewire together. hmm, if we are lucky, Panny will make FW800 a standard connector on there future decks and cameras.

Unfortunately the Sony CineAlta F900 (1920x1080)uses a much higher bit rate. averaging 130MB/s, usually between 110MB/s and 170MB/s


""As for uncompressed video. Not likely. "Uncompressed" video still needs some sort of compression and why would they work on a whole new compression to support that? Because you need fast and wide drives.""
What????
Compression for uncompressed??? hmm... how's that crackpipe??
I guess you have never worked with uncompressed video.
ever heard of SDI?? Serial Digital Interface, the STANDARD for uncompressed video!!!!!!
it is true though, that each Uncompressed board manufacturer needs to write a codec(for lack of a better word) to tell their board how to deal with the Standard SDI stream.

It would be great if apple and others, perhaps AJA, would make us a SDI - FW800 adaptor.

Why would I need fast wide drives? I'll have a FW800 RAID, using standard ATA drives and oxford 922 chipsets before NAB.

"there are great uncompressed cards for about a grand if you do need it."

hmm.. I only know of 1, the Blackmagic Decklink. And I am not sure if if can playback an uncompressed(SDI) stream, although it can definitely acquire the SDI, and playback DV with some realtime effects.

"This would likely be a camera or a deck and that is where the analog to digital conversion would happen. FW800 couldnt change this."

hmmm am I going to have analog to digital conversion from my camera or deck??
well, if all my stuff is shot on digial cameras, then there is no conversion.


After Effects can be set up with renderfarms.

Sol
Feb 24, 2003, 09:50 PM
Yes, FW800 would be important for High definition video cameras, recording mechanisms, etc. As for uncompressed video, true no DV or Motion-JPG like codec is used for it but you still need to convert an analogue signal to digital video. With twice the speed I think a standard definition converter would work over FW800 BUT THEN AGAIN the same thing would be possible over FW400 and we have seen no such products from Canopus, Formac, etc. My hope is that uncompressed video over FW would be cheaper than a PCI solution.

FCP 4 should have much improved GUI options. I love making audio tracks as tall as the screen in Pro Tools and that is a feature I hope to see in FCP. I am sure we will see a lot of new and re-written filters as well as real-time effects (so long as you have a brand new Mac).

The idea about a video render farm might be good for film editing but for DV projects or Motion-JPG it would be over the top. I would rather do all my rendering on a workstation that is up to the task.

eric_n_dfw
Feb 24, 2003, 10:02 PM
Thank you, spacepower, for adding some sanity to this thread!

I think that when michaelyoung says that uncompressed video still is compressed, he means that it is encoded or digitized. That would be a true statement - unless he's thinking that a loss-less compression is applied - but then it wouldn't really be uncompressed then would it?

I'm a hobiest videographer* so I don't want to come off as some kind of pro-wannabe or anything, but I'm pretty sure spacepower is correct in much of what he (she?) said.

Also, (not that I could afford to make use of it), I'd love to see FCP be able to distribute rendering off to a "farm". You'd probably need gigabit ethernet and a fast file server to make it worth anything but it would be a nice way to sell racks of XServes and XRaids!

-Eric

*(FWIW, I started with NLE's right about the time FCP 1.0 came out but played a little with the Toaster in college when I worked for Commie-Amiga)

eric_n_dfw
Feb 24, 2003, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Sol
The idea about a video render farm might be good for film editing but for DV projects or Motion-JPG it would be over the top. I would rather do all my rendering on a workstation that is up to the task.
(This was posted while I was still typing my comments in)

You are probably right here. I think all of us FCP users have high hopes for the IBM 970 or something to bring us up to speed on rendering times.

eric_n_dfw
Feb 24, 2003, 10:16 PM
One thing I'd like to see (which might exist on some ulta-high end stuff that I'll never be able to afford) is high speed transfer from DV tape.

I can think of no technical reason why there couldn't be a tape drive that could read/write DV25 data at higher than 1:1 speed. FW800 could really shine there, but FW400, from what I understand, has a lot of headroom as it is today.

Anybody know why this wouldn't work and/or why there aren't any products out there? (or if there is, please fill me in!)

-Eric

Sol
Feb 24, 2003, 10:20 PM
What if the render farm becomes available as a service on the Net? If it was I would edit a project on my own workstation and for a subscription I could access hundreds of CPUs to do my rendering for the time that I need them. I imagine that Apple's XServes would be ideal for such a render farm operation.

Macpoops
Feb 24, 2003, 11:55 PM
Call me crazy but wouldn't it be possible for apple to rewrite FCP solely using cocoa? It seems logical to me. They haven't really released any OS 9 compatible software since 10.2 came out. They want more people moving to OSX and this would be a way to get video editors who haven;t made the switch to switch. I've had FCP crash on me many times so hopefully rewriting in cocoa could fix this. Maybe i'm missing something but it seems pretty logical to me.

eric_n_dfw
Feb 25, 2003, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Sol
What if the render farm becomes available as a service on the Net? If it was I would edit a project on my own workstation and for a subscription I could access hundreds of CPUs to do my rendering for the time that I need them. I imagine that Apple's XServes would be ideal for such a render farm operation. The bottleneck there is the massive amounts of data that would be sent across the "Net". 60 Min's of MiniDV/DVCAM (DV25) footage takes up approx 12GB you know.

GeneR
Feb 25, 2003, 12:53 AM
IMO (for what it's worth), I would think that filmmakers using FCP1.x-3.x are probably finding that the render issue is one major issue.

From what I've learned from many helpful people here on the site, a render farm service probably will emerge to help editors get over this rendering hurdle once FCP allows the rendering work to be distributed across a network of computers. However, we still don't have that option and until we do, FCP is has a long way to grow.

I would think in the future most independent film companies will have several FCP workstations (and/or laptops) connected to a network of XServers to do real time editing of Hi-Def footage for both theatrical as well as cable/television. But until that happens, I wonder if XServers will be as appealing as Linux boxes in the film industry.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Let me know what you think. Thanks!

:D

GeneR
Feb 25, 2003, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
The bottleneck there is the massive amounts of data that would be sent across the "Net". 60 Min's of MiniDV/DVCAM (DV25) footage takes up approx 12GB you know.

I agree somewhat. The net's probably not going to be the way to go for most filmmakers for the foreseeable future (unless you've got the hookup like those guys at New Line who are doing The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and then that's another story!)

However, it probably WILL be the way in the future as more people gain higher access speeds and find themselves outsourcing a greater amount of duties and film footage to third party/independent contractors and service bureaus. Even (I would think) the new Airport Extreme standard will have to grow beyond 56MB to accommodate.

Eventually, an entire production company will be more actively controlled from a single laptop. Most editing work will be able to be done by the editor on one, then zipped across the network to a bank of rendering machines. I think we're already seeing that in some circles. However, I believe the tools are still being developed and the way we're now doing business in the industry are changing at an incredible rate.

And if FCP is going to be a cornerstone of this digital movement, I think we need these capabilities integrated into FCP's future versions.

Anyway, I welcome your thoughts on this... Thanks! :D

michaelyoung
Feb 25, 2003, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by spacepower

""As for uncompressed video. Not likely. "Uncompressed" video still needs some sort of compression and why would they work on a whole new compression to support that? Because you need fast and wide drives.""
What????
Compression for uncompressed??? hmm... how's that crackpipe??
I guess you have never worked with uncompressed video.


HAHAHAHA! I go to work every day and edit and compostite Uncompressed HD and uncompressed SDI on 2 terabytes of SCSI storage. We also have an uncompressed Digital Voodo system and 15 offline (DV) final cut stations. I put together both online and most of the offline systems. So. sorry. I think I am familiar with video.



ever heard of SDI?? Serial Digital Interface, the STANDARD for uncompressed video!!!!!!
it is true though, that each Uncompressed board manufacturer needs to write a codec(for lack of a better word) to tell their board how to deal with the Standard SDI stream.

SDI is a cable and connection interface. What does that have to do with compression? I can send compressed video over SDI. It does not make it uncompressed.
Listen. If you are going to be rude, get your facts straight. A codec is a compression. The compression contains the video like a glass contains water. It holds it. DV is a codec/compression.
If you capture "uncompressed" the card is encoding and compressing the video. Even if it is imperceptible. Even if it is called 1:1. It is not an absolute science, it is perception. At some point it must limit the colorspace and pixels. At some point. If this is far beyond 720x480 then it is "losless" but is is still encoded and still contained in a digital medium.




Why would I need fast wide drives? I'll have a FW800 RAID, using standard ATA drives and oxford 922 chipsets before NAB.

If you have a FW800 Raid that is acting as a fast and wide and that was my point: for now you need "special" ie. non-stock drives to play uncompressed. FW800 wont change this.


"This would likely be a camera or a deck and that is where the analog to digital conversion would happen. FW800 couldnt change this."

hmmm am I going to have analog to digital conversion from my camera or deck??
well, if all my stuff is shot on digial cameras, then there is no conversion.


exactly. people were suggesting that you would be able to capture "live" "uncompressed" video. I am merely saying that you need something to do the conversion. (camera, deck or digital to analog)

Why dont you go back and read the post.

By the way, dont come here and be rude or you will turn this site into another Powerpage.org where it is just a bunch of loud lonely geeks bashing eachother. Not to mention that you seem to know just enough about the topic to get you into trouble.

eric_n_dfw
Feb 25, 2003, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by michaelyoung
A codec is a compression. The compression contains the video like a glass contains water. It holds it.
It sounds like some terms are being used differently by different people. A CODEC, as you probably know, stands for "enCODE, DECode". It is software (implemented in hardware or by the CPU) that takes data and either encodes it or decodes it from one form to another. Apparently, some people also call this process, "compression" even if the CODEC results in 1:1 size ratios. I've heard the term used in audio circles for other meaning too.

To me, as a programmer by trade, a 1:1 CODEC is, by it's very nature, not compressing anything - so I simply call it a CODEC or a converter, not compression.

So am I right in what I'm saying, that compression is used differently in your industry?

DV is a codec/compression.Are you talking about DV25 or Digital Video in general?

If you capture "uncompressed" the card is encoding and compressing the video. Even if it is imperceptible. Even if it is called 1:1. It is not an absolute science, it is perception. At some point it must limit the colorspace and pixels. At some point. If this is far beyond 720x480 then it is "losless" but is is still encoded and still contained in a digital medium.Ah, so I think what I would call "Digitizing" (the digital aproximation of an analog signal), whether done in the camera by the CCD's or by the capture card, might also be called compression here, eh? Since even a 1:1 ratio compression will lose some fidelidy as is enters the digital domain.

Not to mention that you seem to know just enough about the topic to get you into trouble. Although not written to me, it probably applies to me too! :D

cmassof
Feb 25, 2003, 10:42 AM
Everything you ever wanted to know about codecs (with picture comparisons) can be found here:
http://www.onerivermedia.com/codecs/main.htm

As for renderfarms for DV or almost any video,
FCP running on a late model models machine is plenty fast for rendering most video edits. Most edits consist of cuts, dissolves, some color correction and maybe some titles.
The long render times are usually a result of multi-layered composites which need to be rendered regardless of your setup.

Just my My 2 cents.

GeneR
Feb 25, 2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by cmassof
Everything you ever wanted to know about codecs (with picture comparisons) can be found here:
http://www.onerivermedia.com/codecs/main.htm

As for renderfarms for DV or almost any video,
FCP running on a late model models machine is plenty fast for rendering most video edits. Most edits consist of cuts, dissolves, some color correction and maybe some titles.
The long render times are usually a result of multi-layered composites which need to be rendered regardless of your setup.

Just my My 2 cents.

Um... I think a lot of people (myself included) use a heck of a lot of multi-layered composites, hence the mention about the render farms. I guess I also disagree about the rendering most video edits, but since I tend to lean towards more multi-layered tricks, that in itself could be the answer. Still as video goes to Hi-Def, again I think we've got another issue about rendering...

My 2 cents too...

;)

nuckinfutz
Feb 25, 2003, 11:32 AM
Codec

COmpress/DECompressor

cmassof
Feb 25, 2003, 12:06 PM
Point taken, Gene.

I also do a lot of layered compositing, mainly in AE and find that I have never used the watch folder feature. Watch folders in AE are essentially a render farm setup. The reason is that, I don't have multiple machines to render to.

My comment was based on the observation that many of those involved in the discussion claimed to be hobbyists or "not pros". I don't believe many hobbiests (non I know of) are going to go out and buy a couple more macs so they can render faster. Also, my experience with image sequences from renderfarms (supplied from outside sources), still need some sort of rendering or encoding to play in real-time anyway.

Hey, we all have different workflows and needs. Personally, I would rather see better media managment than renderfarm style rendering.

That makes 4 cents now, doesn't it?

eric_n_dfw
Feb 25, 2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Codec

COmpress/DECompressor
It seems we have multiple definitions here. A google search turns at least 3 sites (in the first 2 pages) supporting Coding/Decoding and 1 saying Compress/Decompress.

:rolleyes:


Added: Apple's FCP support pages use the Compress/Decompress terminology so I will shut up now :)
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=36696&SaveKCWindowURL=http%3A%2F%2Fkbase.info.apple.com%2Fcgi-bin%2FWebObjects%2Fkbase.woa%2Fwa%2FSaveKCToHomePage&searchMode=Assisted&kbhost=kbase.info.apple.com&showButton=false&randomValue=100&showSurvey=false&sessionID=anonymous|165178460

michaelyoung
Feb 25, 2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
It sounds like some terms are being used differently by different people.
To me, as a programmer by trade, a 1:1 CODEC is, by it's very nature, not compressing anything - so I simply call it a CODEC or a converter, not compression.


You are probably right. Maybe it is semantics.

Here is my point in a nutshell. If I capture "uncompressed" video and output and capture again on some other "uncompressed" system and repeat, bit by bit (pun intended) this will be lost in the interpretation. Maybe _never_ _ever_ perceptible. But stuff is going on. Thats why I use compress interchangibly with encode. Not because I am crazy. Just because that is how _I_ think of it. Uncompressed video is great! And better than anyone will ever see on their home TV.

Now if it is a totally _digital_ transfer (like DV or if there was a Uncompressed "wrapper" like DV..that just transfered ones and zeros ..i _knowDV is compressed...i am just talking about digitzing onto a computer) then of course I wouldnt call that compression.
If you are capturing via SDI to computer the inerpretation is still going on _somewhere_. Thats why different codecs _look_ different. And that is why I think of encoding as compressing in some way. I am not saying it is encoding _then_ compressing. I just think of it as a process that includes both.

SDI to SDI (no computer involved) obviously would remain truly "uncompressed" in my book.

I have always understood CODEC to be compress/decompress. But again, we all learn our own way.

I guess it is about language.

That being said, I am glad to know there are so many FCP users here.

Good luck to you guys.

LethalWolfe
Feb 26, 2003, 01:35 AM
1. For the love of freaking Christ can the Media Manager be over hauled and made robust<sp?> enough to work as

2. RE native 24p & HD. Does this means Cinema Tools will go away?

3. RE render farm: If you are doing that much "vertical editing" you should be using a stand alone compositing/FX program to begin with. ;) Seriously though, render farm abilities would be useful, but I think it's farther down the list.

Personally, I'm hopping that FCP 4 refines FCP's editing ability and doesn't just add a bunch of features that only a fraction of the FCP community needs or wants. Oh, and better EDL and OMF importing and exporting would be nice too. :)


Lethal

ktlx
Feb 26, 2003, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by michaelyoung
I have always understood CODEC to be compress/decompress. But again, we all learn our own way.

I guess it is about language.

Unfortunately whoever taught you, taught you incorrectly. CODECs stand for COding/DECoding not COmpress/DECompress. The original telephony CODECs were simply algorithms to digitize sound. The concept of compression did not apply. Adding compression to CODECs came along later.

In my mind it is kind of like DVD. Many people insist that DVD stands for Digital Video Disk when it stands for Digital Versatile Disk. Just because you can find lots of references calling it Digital Video Disk does not mean it is correct.

Sol
Feb 26, 2003, 10:25 PM
Compression Of Digitally Encoded Crap

spacepower
Feb 27, 2003, 07:34 AM
First, I would like to apologize to michaelyoung and others for coming off as an a## in my first post.

I started working with digital video back when most of our work was shot on BetaSP. I used a Media100 Vincent 601 card. Back then we had 3:1 compression was about the best. And yes we needed alot of fast drives to run things at that high of a data rate. Nowadays a RAID on FW400 could handle that system for projects that aren't too graphic intensive. I used that setup with a B&W G3 for awhile.

When I referred to SDI, and uncompressed cards, I meant that you get what ever format you send to the computer, into the computer, is mostly unaffected. I always referred to CODECS myself, as compress/decompress. I never consider 1:1 codecs that are used with uncompressed boards, as compression, because they barely affect the data in comparison to the analog to digital converstors and 3:1 compression rates of my old media100.

If I send DV25 which is 4:1:1 sampling rate and a 5:1 compression ratio rfrom a deck over SDI to an Uncompressed SDI card. I am going to end up with DV25,4:1:1,5:1, in the cpu, barely affected by the "codec"

If I have a similar set up with DV50 or DigiBeta, that is what I am going to get in the cpu. From the deck to the uncompressed card, over SDI, the "codec" encodes the video in a format the the card can use. This encoding process has very little effect on the video, 1:1, and it is not compressing it in the same sense as the media100 card.

This is why I don't consider 1:1 codecs as compression.
maybe I am am technically wrong, but most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference in the footage.

peace

FCPPro
Feb 27, 2003, 09:06 AM
If I send DV25 which is 4:1:1 sampling rate and a 5:1 compression ratio rfrom a deck over SDI to an Uncompressed SDI card. I am going to end up with DV25,4:1:1,5:1, in the cpu, barely affected by the "codec"

Actually, you'll end up with a 4:1:1 DV signal embedded into a 4:2:2 lossless codec.

Now, for most people that ain't no big thang.

But for those of us who need to do lots of rendering, compositing, and effects - it's a world of difference. I won't go into it here because it's beyond the scope of this thread (which was responding to that totally ametuerish prediction of FCP 4 feature set), but there are plenty of sites to ask questions and learn more about why you would want to capture DV into an 'uncompressed' codec.


[the only 1 grand SDI capture card is] the Blackmagic Decklink. And I am not sure if if can playback an uncompressed(SDI) stream, although it can definitely acquire the SDI, and playback DV with some realtime effects.

For the record: Decklink and its big brother Kona are SDI capture and output cards that also happen to do live SDI->DV and DV->SDI bridging - among a host of other things... including supporting realtime SDI 8bit and 10bit effects and color correction.

LethalWolfe
Feb 27, 2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by ktlx
Unfortunately whoever taught you, taught you incorrectly. CODECs stand for COding/DECoding not COmpress/DECompress. The original telephony CODECs were simply algorithms to digitize sound. The concept of compression did not apply. Adding compression to CODECs came along later.

In my mind it is kind of like DVD. Many people insist that DVD stands for Digital Video Disk when it stands for Digital Versatile Disk. Just because you can find lots of references calling it Digital Video Disk does not mean it is correct.

CODEC can stand for either COder/DECoder or COmpressor/DECompressor. But honestly you are the first that I've ever seen use "COder/DECoder" (but I didn manage to find that at acronymfinder.com (http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?p=dict&String=exact&Acronym=CODEC) so I know yer not just making things up. ;)


Lethal

michaelyoung
Feb 27, 2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by spacepower
First, I would like to apologize to michaelyoung and others for coming off as an a## in my first post.


Thanks. I am trying to make an effort to be more civil too. Like I said. This site is great and the forums are good here too. I would hate to see it slip into a powerpage.org kind of situation.

It is interesting to see what peoples' priorities here are. I work in a film and braodcast world so we have a lot of pro features we need that dont look great on a press release...

It is really cool to see so many FCPers here.

GeneR
Feb 27, 2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by michaelyoung
Thanks. I am trying to make an effort to be more civil too. Like I said. This site is great and the forums are good here too. I would hate to see it slip into a powerpage.org kind of situation.

It is interesting to see what peoples' priorities here are. I work in a film and braodcast world so we have a lot of pro features we need that dont look great on a press release...

It is really cool to see so many FCPers here.

I agree! :D

The more the merrier!

asparagui
Feb 27, 2003, 09:41 PM
The problem is that network rendering (compositing) is largely IO bound. Once the data has made it to the machine, it doesn't matter how fast the render box is. Rendering over the internet, as a result, is impractical. Even if you had 100 super-fast boxes available on the other side of a $1000/month T1, a single lowly ghz machine on a local (hopefully gigabit) LAN will beat them mercilessly.

Likewise, this is why distributed computing, while popular, has a long ways to go before it can become profitable. It only makes sense if the CPU cycles/bandwidth on both ends are free. (i.e. academic projects)

3D rendering, while CPU intensive, falls to the same problem. This is why you won't be helping render Toy Story 3 any time soon.

Anyways, to return to the topic, NAB is April 7-10. FCP4 will be released. (It should have come out six months ago).

My predictions: Film/HD timecode/editing will now be integrated. Cinema Tools will no longer be a stand-alone project.

Hopefully Apple will fix the subclip bug issue plus the other major bugs.

Background rendering is a possibility I'd like to see.

Moving to the Cocoa toolkit would be nice, but probabally impractical at this stage in development.

Network rendering is an interesting possibility. Coupled with a couple of xServes and a xRaid, Apple could begin attacking the mid-range Avid market. (http://avid.com/products/ds/)

This would be an interesting response to XpressDV that would be in the best interest of us Joe Users. Avid's gone too long without any real competition.

RandomMacGuy
Mar 4, 2003, 03:13 AM
Final Cut Pro 4 is coming.

I am 100% positive.

It's going to have mad-sexy love with Shake 3 (includes: warper, morpher, audio, swamp -- see xserves ;), a new curve editor, and much more).

It's going to have more pro audio support, realtime EVERYTHING, revamped titles, super high quality rendering (coltrain), and will be based on XML for the unix nuts.

It's funny... I was poking around and I came across this very informative email... I probably said too much, but there is much more to say ;)

- RMG
--> Poking around in all the wrong places:)

bennyek
Mar 7, 2003, 06:08 PM
I am really excited for FCp4
i have been waiting and hoping for 24p support from someone and i think apple may do it this time around. it will go great with my new ag-dvx100 cam.

thenewbohemian
Mar 22, 2003, 12:34 PM
Perhaps the most important aspect of FCP 4 will be its support for a new Panasonic DV VTR that works in the 4:2:2 color space.

All DV currently operates in the 4:1:1 colorspace, which means that a lot of information in the video is thrown out to allow for smaller files and lower transfer speeds.

With Firewire 800 and a decent amount of drive space, the new deck will allow for less compression and put DV on scale with standard broadcast edit set ups.

Pinnacle Cinewave and a few others will feel the pain as they are left with what amounts to overpriced Real Time cards. The whole PCI capture card industry's advantage, the 4:2:2 color space, will dissipate.

Translation: we can work in DV and have sharp, crisp text and graphics that look as good as a million dollar production. DV will become fully professional and not just a low budget cable TV commercial alternative.

boskie
Mar 22, 2003, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by michaelyoung

With the quality of DV the average (non-broadcast) user does not need uncompressed...and there are great uncompressed cards for about a grand if you do need it.

Too true, here's a good QT based card for OSX (http://203.94.147.64/productsdeck.asp) that might interest peolple looking for Serial Digital Interface (SDI) i/o options without the heavy cost of real-time rendering cards (http://www.pinnaclesys.com/ProductPage.asp?Product_ID=108)

Better uses for FW800:

4 channel simultaneous audio capture/output. (this is needed).

definately, intergrated into both high end pro-tools rigs to consumor devices such as the iPod - mobile HD recording with 17" Powerbook and 40G iPod:D
Fibre-Share networking.

Whatever happened to Yamaha's mLan??

nuckinfutz
Mar 22, 2003, 05:37 PM
Whatever happened to Yamaha's mLan??

It's alive and well.

mLAN Partners are growing (http://www.yamaha.co.jp/tech/1394mLAN/english/partner.html)

Yamaha just announced the 01X

http://www.01xray.com/

Very cool Mixer/Interface

Now if I could just get a control surface with FCP and Logic control ;)