PDA

View Full Version : Final Cut Pro 6, Final Cut Extreme Details? Displays (again)?




MacRumors
Mar 2, 2007, 11:37 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

ThinkSecret, writing for PCMagazine (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2099257,00.asp), claims to have additional details about Final Cut Pro 6, Final Cut Extreme, and long-rumored display upgrades.

Final Cut Extreme is said to enable the most demanding users to edit uncompressed 4K and 2540p video. Compatibility is said to include Red Digital Cinema's Red, Panavision Genesis, Dalsa Origin, Thompson Viper, Sony Cinealta, Phantom HD, and Arri D20 cameras.

To add to this report, MacRumors has received unconfirmed information regarding the hardware of the system. The Core card is said to utilize 4 Cell BE chips (as used in the Sony Playstation 3), with two additional "accelerator" cards being available, each containing 6 Cell chips. According to our source, the Core card will have 4 HD-SDI inputs, and a connector for a breakout box, as only 2 cards will be able to work in the Mac Pro (the only machine said to be compatible with the high-end system).

In regards to Final Cut Pro 6, the site believes the software will require a 64-bit chip (G5, Core 2 Duo, Xeon) to run. In addition, integration with Core Animation is reiterated (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/02/22/final-cut-pro-6-to-debut-at-nab/), and the site adds that the software will indeed be Leopard-dependent.

Those high-end requirements will also allow the new Final Cut Studio to support resolution independence, a new feature of Leopard that allows an application's interface to scale with the display's resolution, ideal for users working with high resolution displays with a high number of pixels packed into each square inch.

Regarding displays, ThinkSecret believes that displays may be coming around NAB as well, including a new high-end display capable of supporting 4K+ resolutions. The site also believes that Apple may bump the 17" MacBook Pro display to support native HD video editing.

Display rumors have been floating around for a few months. Some previous rumors can be found here (http://www.macrumors.com/2006/12/22/new-displays-at-macworld/).

[ Digg This (http://www.digg.com/apple/Final_Cut_Extreme_To_Use_Cell_Chips) ]



FF_productions
Mar 2, 2007, 11:40 AM
Nice!!

Can't afford it but they are really competing with Avid with Final Cut Extreme. This rumor is like 1 year old let's hope it comes out this year.

mainstreetmark
Mar 2, 2007, 11:40 AM
I never really cared for the marketing word "Extreme", especially since Taco Bell destroyed it a few years back.

(Hoping the new screens are all mutlitouch display, and Leopard's secret feature is, also, multitouch)

atari1356
Mar 2, 2007, 11:44 AM
I want new displays too, so I can get a bargain deal on one of the current 20" models.

Then again, maybe I'll just get a Dell since it will still be at least $200 less. :rolleyes:

studiomusic
Mar 2, 2007, 11:45 AM
Can you imagine what Apple Final Cut Extreme plus a Red camera could do for the indie film market?
It would cost less than the food budget for most Hollywood blockbusters, and deliver results equal to, if not better, than those Big Flicks!
Watch out big film studios!

tk421
Mar 2, 2007, 11:47 AM
I hope this rumor is true more than any other rumor! Now with multiple sources of confirmation... please be true! And I may be going to NAB, too.

zblaxberg
Mar 2, 2007, 11:48 AM
the site adds that the software will indeed be Leopard-dependent.


YAY!!! I get to have leopard soon. What are the chances of it coming out in march since fcp is set for a mid-april release?

FF_productions
Mar 2, 2007, 11:48 AM
Ouch, those are some strict system requirements. If my MacBook Pro can't run Final Cut Pro 6, I'll be pretty damn upset.

nagromme
Mar 2, 2007, 11:54 AM
With Leopard's UI, the disadvantages (oh my eyes!) of packing too many pixels into a laptop screen go away. Bring on the 17" HD! And higher-DPI desktop screens too. (I wouldn't say no to iSight and a Front Row receiver--two things that made me choose a 24" iMac over a Mac Pro, and I'm glad I did.)

Cell accelerator boards sound like a pipe dream to me, but back when all the cell hype was first going around, that was the (Mac-related) speculation that made the most sense. Cell may be too specialized to run a desktop OS and full range of apps well--but it could be used along WITH a main processor to accelerate the things it's good at. It would be interesting to see PowerPC live on in Macs in that capacity.

crassusad44
Mar 2, 2007, 11:54 AM
In regards to Final Cut Pro 6, the site believes the software will require a 64-bit chip (G5, Core 2 Duo, Xeon) to run.

This will make many current non-HD, and HD (720i and 1080i/p) editors very unhappy. Why on earth should not Core Duo machines be able to use FCP/S 6? The extreme version I can understand, but FCP 5 actually runs fine on an aging G4. Can't see Apple making this move. But then again, ThinkSecret have often been way off on their speculation recently...

LaDirection
Mar 2, 2007, 11:55 AM
Ouch, those are some strict system requirements. If my MacBook Pro can't run Final Cut Pro 6, I'll be pretty damn upset.

Yes it can, it's 64-bit, just not Extreme (but who would edit 4k on a laptop :P)

I was about to buy a decklink HD extreme, I'll wait just a little bit to see what's up...

FF_productions
Mar 2, 2007, 11:57 AM
Cell accelerator boards sound like a pipe dream to me, but back when all the cell hype was first going around, that was the (Mac-related) speculation that made the most sense. Cell may be too specialized to run a desktop OS and full range of apps well--but it could be used along WITH a main processor to accelerate the things it's good at. It would be interesting to see PowerPC live on in Macs in that capacity.

It would be very interesting to see PPC hanging around in Macs.

FF_productions
Mar 2, 2007, 11:58 AM
Yes it can, it's 64-bit, just not Extreme (but who would edit 4k on a laptop :P)

I was about to buy a decklink HD extreme, I'll wait just a little bit to see what's up...

My MacBook Pro is a core-duo, hence it is a 32 bit chip. I really hope Apple doesn't leave all us 32 bitters in the dust. I think those specs mentioned above are for Final Cut Extreme.

Object-X
Mar 2, 2007, 12:01 PM
Apple hinted at it when introducing the iPhone and talking about it's 160dpi. At the Leopard Tech Talk Apple said the next generation displays would have ultra high dpi and indicated Leopard's resolution independence would support these displays.

Of course, it might start with a ultra high end ($$$) display and then trickle down. So, maybe that's what the rumor is hinting at.

shawnce
Mar 2, 2007, 12:03 PM
A new 50" display, please. No thanks. I don't need to break my neck looking around a screen that large :)

Now a 144 DPI or better yet 216 DPI display in a 30" form factor would be great.

tk421
Mar 2, 2007, 12:16 PM
For those wondering about the strict system requirements, I would guess that FCP 6 would run just fine on existing systems. FC Extreme would not.

This is not a big deal. FC Extreme becomes an online suite, but you're welcome to do offline edits on a laptop or whatever.

Multimedia
Mar 2, 2007, 12:17 PM
I remember last Summer when all the Core 2 Duo waiters were being poo pooed by the Core Duo earliest adopters 'cause 64-bit wouldn't matter for years ahead. Well so much for that theory. See ya. ;)

1920 x 1080 2.4GHz Santa Rosa 4GB capable C2D 17" MBP would be dope.

brianus
Mar 2, 2007, 12:20 PM
[url=http://www.macrumors.com]Regarding displays, [i]ThinkSecret believes that displays may be coming around NAB as well, including a new high-end display capable of supporting 4K+ resolutions.

plus? The biggest horizontal resolution listed for "4k" on wikipedia is 4096, and the biggest vertical is 2664. So assuming a 16:9 form factor, a display capable of handling all these resolutions would have to be at least 4736x2664.

On a side note, what's with the designation "4k"? Sometimes these industry terms seem designed to deliberately confuse...

Multimedia
Mar 2, 2007, 12:23 PM
plus? The biggest horizontal resolution listed for "4k" on wikipedia is 4096, and the biggest vertical is 2664. So assuming a 16:9 form factor, a display capable of handling all these resolutions would have to be at least 4736x2664.

On a side note, what's with the designation "4k"? Sometimes these industry terms seem designed to deliberately confuse...I thought it is a reference to the almost 4k width of the native res of 4k which I believe is 3840 x 2160 - i.e. twice as wide and twice as high as today's HDTV standard or 4x 1920 x 1080. But 4096 is 4k in computer terms 4 x 1024. So either way works for me. I know the 4k theatrical projectors made by Sony do 3840 x 2160. I haven't studied the Wikipedia page you refer to. I'm sure AppliedVisual (http://forums.macrumors.com/member.php?u=85227) will come to our rescue soon. ;) He has a RED (http://red.com/) on order.

stagi
Mar 2, 2007, 12:24 PM
I would just love to replace my 3 year old 20" studio display with a current new 23" with a price drop, maybe around $699 and I would be all over it.:)

jakebot
Mar 2, 2007, 12:30 PM
hmmm.... uncompressed 4k. I'm assuming that this price tag would only include the software plus your in/out card / box. (which makes the price tag look pretty good) but I imagine getting uncompressed 4k would require you to invest in a TON more money to buy a raid of drives that can handle 324 MBPS.

that data rate is insane. but fun!

:)

fred_garvin
Mar 2, 2007, 12:44 PM
I don't do video editing any higher end than iMovie, but I am curious, what was the point of Pixlet that was touted for Tiger? I never see anyone reference it, just uncompressed.

Thx.

MacsRgr8
Mar 2, 2007, 12:44 PM
Leopard and FCS 6 breathes new life in my G5 Quad... ;)

flyinmac
Mar 2, 2007, 12:45 PM
I remember last Summer when all the Core 2 Duo waiters were being poo pooed by the Core Duo earliest adopters 'cause 64-bit wouldn't matter for years ahead. Well so much for that theory. See ya. ;)

1920 x 1080 2.4GHz Santa Rosa 4GB capable C2D 17" MBP would be dope.

Well, I stayed away from the original CoreDuo because it was obvious that it was a temporary chip. Before it was released, Intel had already set an end-of-life date for it. So, I pretty much knew not to bother with it.

It also didn't make much sense that Apple had been pushing 64-BIT processors so hard, and then all of a sudden released all their systems with a 32-BIT processor (naturally not mentioning it anywhere).

So, it was such an odd movement, and had no indication that it was a trend to continue.

Basically, Apple was in a hurry to switch to Intel processors. And, there were no 64-BIT processors to use at the time. So, Apple jumped and made a move with a temporary solution just to get the ball rolling.

I couldn't see the logic in stepping backwards, so I decided to wait until the chips were actually 64-BIT again. Of course, now my needs have changed, and I am waiting for Apple to release a system that meets my needs. So, I'm still holding-off for a bit while I wait for them to hopefully introduce a system that fits me.

DMann
Mar 2, 2007, 12:48 PM
Leopard and FCS 6 breathes new life in my G5 Quad... ;)

Especially since your G5 Quad uses 64 bit processors:cool:

MacsRgr8
Mar 2, 2007, 12:50 PM
Especially since your G5 Quad uses 64 bit processors:cool:

Exactly! :)

TheAnswer
Mar 2, 2007, 12:52 PM
So...if the current thoughts that Leopard isn't quite ready for prime time are true (meaning Apple releases it the last day of spring), and the thoughts that the new FCP requires Leopard are true...FCS might not actually ship until early summer.

DMann
Mar 2, 2007, 12:55 PM
Well, I stayed away from the original CoreDuo because it was obvious that it was a temporary chip. Before it was released, Intel had already set an end-of-life date for it. So, I pretty much knew not to bother with it.

It also didn't make much sense that Apple had been pushing 64-BIT processors so hard, and then all of a sudden released all their systems with a 32-BIT processor (naturally not mentioning it anywhere).

So, it was such an odd movement, and had no indication that it was a trend to continue.

Basically, Apple was in a hurry to switch to Intel processors. And, there were no 64-BIT processors to use at the time. So, Apple jumped and made a move with a temporary solution just to get the ball rolling.

I couldn't see the logic in stepping backwards, so I decided to wait until the chips were actually 64-BIT again. Of course, now my needs have changed, and I am waiting for Apple to release a system that meets my needs. So, I'm still holding-off for a bit while I wait for them to hopefully introduce a system that fits me.

Sure is fascinating how "spin" can sell a feature, and delberate oversight can steer attention away and neutralize the hype driven by the original
headlines. 64-BIT is back, babeeeee.........

gugy
Mar 2, 2007, 12:56 PM
if ThinkSecret is right is going to be a fun April!
dream come true!!!!!:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :D ;)

ChrisA
Mar 2, 2007, 01:15 PM
plus? The biggest horizontal resolution listed for "4k" on wikipedia is 4096, and the biggest vertical is 2664. So assuming a 16:9 form factor, a display capable of handling all these resolutions would have to be at least 4736x2664.

On a side note, what's with the designation "4k"? Sometimes these industry terms seem designed to deliberately confuse...

In the "film world" they measure resolution by the number of pixels along the widest edge of the frame. This makes sense as film is made in only a few widths but the hight of the frame depends of the aspect ratio which can vary.

In the "video world" they measure the number of lines in the frame.

So if you hear about "2K" or "4K" that is the width in pixels of a scanned film frame. But I think there is now some convergence with video camera that can do film formats. All of this is way out of what I can afford For my use DV still looks good

QCassidy352
Mar 2, 2007, 01:18 PM
I remember last Summer when all the Core 2 Duo waiters were being poo pooed by the Core Duo earliest adopters 'cause 64-bit wouldn't matter for years ahead. Well so much for that theory. See ya. ;)

the people who said that were correct for the overwhelming majority of users. Most people who need this software probably weren't buying core duo imacs and mac minis.

flyinmac
Mar 2, 2007, 01:19 PM
Sure is fascinating how "spin" can sell a feature, and delberate oversight can steer attention away and neutralize the hype driven by the original
headlines. 64-BIT is back, babeeeee.........


Yes, it was interesting how Apple wouldn't acknowledge in any public documents whether the CoreDuo was 32-BIT or 64-BIT. It was just left unmentioned.

By not mentioning it at all, it looked as if:

1) They knew people would be less interested if they knew
2) They were deliberately hiding it

In terms of technology, it was as if we had stepped-back to the G4 in order to move forwards. Sure, it was faster, dual-core, and more powerful than the G4. But, essentially it was stepping back two steps to move forward 3.

For buyers who care about specs (and had paid attention to Apple's deliberate 64-BIT push), it would have made more sense to never step backwards in any aspect and to have only moved forward. In other words, go from 64-BIT to 64-BIT and then advance.

Reach
Mar 2, 2007, 01:25 PM
the people who said that were correct for the overwhelming majority of users. Most people who need this software probably weren't buying core duo imacs and mac minis.

The people that bought the CoreDuo Macbook Pro's before C2D came are stuck with 32 bit processors, I believe it's them he's talking about.
I was in that group of people that waited forever for C2D, and there was a lot of talk about it, and most people, even pretty "pro" people meant that 32/64 wouldn't matter in quite some years.

Alpinism
Mar 2, 2007, 01:30 PM
I bet FCS2/FCP 6 will finally have DVCPROHD support. Also expect blue ray burner to cost u an arm and a leg. I am just looking forward to get the 2.66 quad to be the standard base model.

Persistent Pro
Mar 2, 2007, 01:30 PM
I hope that late powerbook owners get a break too. Or Apple may have a lot of angry Pro users go to the new Adobe for kicks.


My MacBook Pro is a core-duo, hence it is a 32 bit chip. I really hope Apple doesn't leave all us 32 bitters in the dust. I think those specs mentioned above are for Final Cut Extreme.

CJD2112
Mar 2, 2007, 01:31 PM
Sure is fascinating how "spin" can sell a feature, and delberate oversight can steer attention away and neutralize the hype driven by the original
headlines. 64-BIT is back, babeeeee.........

wait wait wait, my Mac Pro 2.66 isn't 64-bit??? wtf? seriously? omg :(

OOops, never mind, you were referring to the Mac Books (right?).

Dual-Core Intel Xeon up to 3GHz
Every Mac Pro offers the incredible power of two 64-bit Dual-Core Intel Xeon “Woodcrest” microprocessors. You choose the processor speed — 2GHz, 2.66GHz, or 3GHz.

Multimedia
Mar 2, 2007, 01:32 PM
Anything larger than 3840 x 2160 will surprise me. That in itself would be a huge leap forward in screen resolution. And interpolation of both HDTV standards would upscale most elegantly:

3 x 1280 = 3840
3 x 720 = 2160
2 x 1920 = 3840
2 x 1080 = 2160

This makes the most logical sense to me as to why this will be the most we should expect and/or hope for. The x-factor is how large will their diameter be? 40", 50"? Who knows?

Multimedia
Mar 2, 2007, 01:33 PM
I bet FCS2/FCP 6 will finally have DVCPROHD support. Also expect blue ray burner to cost u an arm and a leg. I am just looking forward to get the 2.66 quad to be the standard base model.DVCProHD is already supported since 5.1.2. We're up to 5.1.4 now. :rolleyes:

Who's arm and leg? They are already approaching only $499. That isn't too much for this early in the adoption phase. :)

CineAlex
Mar 2, 2007, 01:41 PM
I'm sceptical to this article as they state that it wil bring support for the ARRI D20. The D20 is based on the Sony HDCAM SR format and thus records it's image uncompressed to SR tape. Anyone with knowledge of this system would know that. Seems like the author simply typed up a list of the most well known cameras.

EDIT: And in regards to CineAlta support. I'm an F900 owner and that is a CineAlta camera. CineAlta is simply a marketing gimmick invented by Sony for anything you can record on at 24 fps.

O and A
Mar 2, 2007, 01:49 PM
As far as I know that RED camera is still vaporware.
am i wrong on that?

O and A
Mar 2, 2007, 01:52 PM
I would just love to replace my 3 year old 20" studio display with a current new 23" with a price drop, maybe around $699 and I would be all over it.:)

I use to think like you did until i bought the 24 inch dell screen. and its amazing. And i work in print where color is critical and i havne't had any issues after calibrating it with spyder pro.

rgomez
Mar 2, 2007, 02:01 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if FCP 6 was 64bit only. At the end, it's a pro app where having more than 2-3gb of memory makes a LOT of sense.

It's going to be a difficult decision to take for Apple, as they sold a lot of 32bit intel computers, but I believe that's the way it's going to be. Also, that would make FCP6 Leopard dependant (as Tiger can't handle 64 bit GUI apps), even if it doesn't use CoreVideo and so on.

I was thinking yesterday in those secret features in Leopard... and somewhat the recent article (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070227-8931.html) came to my head... what if they are doing some kind of framework (say, CoreSpeed or some marketing-wise term) to handle GPU accelerated functions easy for developers? I guess that maybe even the stock GeForce 7300 that came with my Mac Pro would be able to speed certain type of operations if used correctly... imagine a framework where the OS decided if an operation can be performed faster in the GPU or the CPU, and execute it there? Suddenly PS works so much faster in Mac OS X 10.5 than in the same computer running Windows... or Safari opens 3 times faster!!! :D

They have a limited set of graphic cards... they do the drivers... doesn't sound so strange to me... anyway... I don't know how hard could it be to implement... but if they are doing acceleration cards using CELL maybe they alredy have some kind of framework inplace...

It could help to sell some (or a lot!) equipment to the HPC niche... they already have the XGrid thing...

Anyway, can't wait for Leopard...

Paul Turpin
Mar 2, 2007, 02:02 PM
I bet FCS2/FCP 6 will finally have DVCPROHD support. Also expect blue ray burner to cost u an arm and a leg. I am just looking forward to get the 2.66 quad to be the standard base model.

I'm hoping that FCP 6 will have AVCHD format support (for those prosumer nerds with one of the Sony HD camcorders that you can't edit on the mac). I also would think that having an HDMI input (not just an output) would be a boon for these same people. Then again, I wouldn't be completely surprised is apple just ****s over people with Sony hardware. However, panasonic has also announced hardware using AVCHD and it seems like a good format for higher end consumer use.

Alpinism
Mar 2, 2007, 02:05 PM
DVCProHD is already supported since 5.1.2. We're up to 5.1.4 now. :rolleyes:

Who's arm and leg? They are already approaching only $499. That isn't too much for this early in the adoption phase. :)


Not if you are using the Panasonic P2 cards. DVCPROHD files in P2 cards are all .mfx files that are not natively supported by FCP 5.X.X yet.

I just hope that Apple is not making us wait till Developers conference or whatever month in order to sell the Mac Pro + Leopard. But Apple did announced that Leopard will be available in the spring though :D

I hope Leopard will be revealed during PMA and then the new Mac Pro will be available to order right after NAB.

Lord Blackadder
Mar 2, 2007, 02:17 PM
I never really cared for the marketing word "Extreme", especially since Taco Bell destroyed it a few years back.

Hey man, I loved their "Extreme Nachos"...:cool:

I'd like to see a new king of Apple displays.

Multimedia
Mar 2, 2007, 02:20 PM
Not if you are using the Panasonic P2 cards. DVCPROHD files in P2 cards are all .mfx files that are not natively supported by FCP 5.X.X yet.

I just hope that Apple is not making us wait till Developers conference or whatever month in order to sell the Mac Pro + Leopard. But Apple did announced that Leopard will be available in the spring though :D

I hope Leopard will be revealed during PMA and then the new Mac Pro will be available to order right after NAB.Thanks for the clarification. I did not know that. the Photo Marketing Assn show in Las Vegas next week March 8-11 (http://www.pmai.org) appears to be just an Aperture showcase opportunity and since it's so soon unlikely to be the Leopard announcement time.

Multimedia
Mar 2, 2007, 02:26 PM
I'm hoping that FCP 6 will have AVCHD format support (for those prosumer nerds with one of the Sony HD camcorders that you can't edit on the mac). I also would think that having an HDMI input (not just an output) would be a boon for these same people. Then again, I wouldn't be completely surprised is apple just ****s over people with Sony hardware. However, panasonic has also announced hardware using AVCHD and it seems like a good format for higher end consumer use.Seems more likely to be a prominent part of iMovie 7 and Final Cut Express 4's new features although I agree it should be supported in FCP6 as well. This format troubles me. I see the compression scheme as inferior to the HDV scheme. Plus how you gonna archive all that non-tape footage? Fundamentally problematic to my way of thinking. :rolleyes:

I guess I need a better sales person to convince me it will last. ;)

Analog Kid
Mar 2, 2007, 02:44 PM
Have to wait for April for display updates? Oh man, this is killing me... I've been promising my wife she would get my 23" when Apple refreshes their lineup for months now...

I was thinking yesterday in those secret features in Leopard... and somewhat the recent article (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070227-8931.html) came to my head... what if they are doing some kind of framework (say, CoreSpeed or some marketing-wise term) to handle GPU accelerated functions easy for developers? I guess that maybe even the stock GeForce 7300 that came with my Mac Pro would be able to speed certain type of operations if used correctly... imagine a framework where the OS decided if an operation can be performed faster in the GPU or the CPU, and execute it there? Suddenly PS works so much faster in Mac OS X 10.5 than in the same computer running Windows... or Safari opens 3 times faster!!! :D

They have a limited set of graphic cards... they do the drivers... doesn't sound so strange to me... anyway... I don't know how hard could it be to implement... but if they are doing acceleration cards using CELL maybe they alredy have some kind of framework inplace...

It could help to sell some (or a lot!) equipment to the HPC niche... they already have the XGrid thing...

Anyway, can't wait for Leopard...
I was thinking along the same lines when I read this-- not so much in the GPU as with a Cell coprocessor. NeXT boxes had a DSP chip on the motherboard to accelerate certain operations, so the concept wouldn't be foreign to a lot of the developers.

I remember last Summer when all the Core 2 Duo waiters were being poo pooed by the Core Duo earliest adopters 'cause 64-bit wouldn't matter for years ahead. Well so much for that theory. See ya. ;)
I can't speak for all the C2D poo pooers, but for myself I was arguing that there was no real advantage to C2D in a laptop before Santa Rosa. I still think that's true. It's a pretty small segment that needs that much memory and the raw performance of the CPUs isn't much different with the current chipset.

Rocketman
Mar 2, 2007, 02:52 PM
They have been updating FCP 5.1.x with several new format capacities. That takes care of 32 bit users, just like 10.4.9 takes care of legacy CPU systems.

FCP6 and 10.5 are new paradigms and can realistically increase the minimum system requirements without leaving anyone in the cold.

People who "need" the more advanced capacities are willing, or should be willing, to do so on a very recent (G5 or C2D or Xeon +) piece of equipment.

To me the good news is now Apple is at least trying not to release crippleware.

As for intel 32 bit whiners, let's not forget you got much higher speed, multi-app capacity, virtualization, and market share. It was in hindsight a wonderful decision.

Rocketman

shawnce
Mar 2, 2007, 02:58 PM
It also didn't make much sense that Apple had been pushing 64-BIT processors so hard, and then all of a sudden released all their systems with a 32-BIT processor (naturally not mentioning it anywhere). ... I couldn't see the logic in stepping backwards, so I decided to wait until the chips were actually 64-BIT again. All of Apple's laptops used 32 bit processors at the time of the Intel switch over. Those systems lost nothing since they never had 64b capable CPUs to begin with. The only system that lost 64b capability was the iMac and the iMac only had a 64b CPU for a relatively short amount of time.

Multimedia
Mar 2, 2007, 02:59 PM
As for intel 32 bit whiners, let's not forget you got much higher speed, multi-app capacity, virtualization, and market share. It was in hindsight a wonderful decision.ROTFLMAO :eek: :p :D :rolleyes: ;) :) :confused: :apple:

CJD2112
Mar 2, 2007, 03:04 PM
All of Apple's laptops used 32 bit processors at the time of the Intel switch over. Those systems lost nothing since they never had 64b capable CPUs to begin with. The only system that lost 64b capability was the iMac and the iMac only had a 64b CPU for a relatively short amount of time.

I love the Steve Ballmer videos. You guys ever see this on youtube:

"The True History of Microsoft"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bExK98Xf0mQ

It's hilarious! :D :p

Random Ping
Mar 2, 2007, 03:06 PM
It would cost less than the food budget for most Hollywood blockbusters
But it would be really hard to duplicate the bad acting and script. ;)

JoeG4
Mar 2, 2007, 03:16 PM
I have a 22" and can hardly wait to get that new screen :eek:
*drools at thought*

Rocketman
Mar 2, 2007, 03:20 PM
ROTFLMAO :eek: :p :D :rolleyes: ;) :) :confused: :apple:

I say I have "dry humor" others say I am "humor impaired". In any case I have on rare occasions caused some to experience hard-core laughter by simply being willing to state the obvious.

As for your "hopes" MM on displays and PortaMacs (see I didn't say either Powerbook or ATN) I agree with you on the hopes. I do say this, if you get anything like your wish on a MBP 17 it will be months after Santa Rosa has already been shipping in an iMac. The lead time for soldered chip motherboards do indeed seem quite long.

The rumor points to the "external PCIe" link which could go to any of several external PCI boxes so "numerous" cards could be supported or a single complex cardset at "high bandwidth", which seems to be the case here.

The whole problem with the RED camera at maximum framerate and format size is bandwidth. The primary solution is capture to RED ramdisc, which as I understand it will capture some 30 minutes of video. If that is the case the FCE system becomes a store-forward content capture and edit station and has no real-time requirements to speak of.

Real-time applications are what will be interesting to see what is actually supported, and will they need an entire computer for EACH camera?

It will still be FAR cheaper than the current options.

Rocketman

guzhogi
Mar 2, 2007, 03:43 PM
No thanks. I don't need to break my neck looking around a screen that large :)

Now a 144 DPI or better yet 216 DPI display in a 30" form factor would be great.

Does anyone know what the highest DPI there is? I've heard the iPhone's screen is 160 DPI, older monitors are 72. What's the highest?

Analog Kid
Mar 2, 2007, 03:51 PM
Wait a second... I just skimmed over this the first time I looked at it-- ThinkSecret is writing for PCMagazine?!?

When did that happen?

siurpeeman
Mar 2, 2007, 03:58 PM
I would just love to replace my 3 year old 20" studio display with a current new 23" with a price drop, maybe around $699 and I would be all over it.:)

if you buy refurb, you can get a current 23" cinema display for $749. it's quite the deal if you ask me.

mark_sloan
Mar 2, 2007, 04:02 PM
With Apple TV my biggest question is whether Apple will move its Display lineup to something like Dell's and make them more like TV monitors with multiple inputs.

enjoyapple
Mar 2, 2007, 04:32 PM
just can't wait for those displays update.. it's been months since i've been waiting for any good sign of release. bank account is full now, ready to shrink back to a 10 euros left on, after i offer myself a dream: the biggest and nicest apple screen for my MPB C2D. please hurry. i would love isights regarding the fact that it would be a great addition for those highly priced views on the internet world.
bring it on!

aloofman
Mar 2, 2007, 04:40 PM
As far as I know that RED camera is still vaporware.
am i wrong on that?

You're not wrong. AFAIK, they have never demonstrated a working prototype to the public. They've had a presence at some tradeshows (like NAB '06), but there was no camera there. Doesn't mean there won't be one, but since no one has seen it work, it's weird for a third party to already claim they will support it.

Links
Mar 2, 2007, 04:53 PM
Latest info and delivery of first RED cams.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=746

Much Ado
Mar 2, 2007, 04:58 PM
64-bit for FC-X?

My iMac G5 is ready! Huzzah!

/Insert sarcasm
MA.

Rod Rod
Mar 2, 2007, 05:11 PM
I bet FCS2/FCP 6 will finally have DVCPROHD support.DVCProHD is already supported since 5.1.2. We're up to 5.1.4 now. :rolleyes:
DVCProHD support came in FCP 4.5, back in April 2004 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/apr/18fcp.html). This was relevant for Varicam and 1200A users. It worked fine on PowerBook G4s.
Then again, I wouldn't be completely surprised is apple just ****s over people with Sony hardware.People who bought that AVCHD Sony hardware ****ed themselves over.
Not if you are using the Panasonic P2 cards. DVCPROHD files in P2 cards are all .mfx files that are not natively supported by FCP 5.X.X yet.
Then I suppose you were talking about P2 support that goes above and beyond what's already there. Does cloning P2 cards in Disk Utility help you at all?
The rumor points to the "external PCIe" link which could go to any of several external PCI boxes so "numerous" cards could be supported or a single complex cardset at "high bandwidth", which seems to be the case here.That's the point of ExpressCard/34 and 54, right? Are you talking about something like this (http://www.mobilityelectronics.com/expansion/products/)?

flyinmac
Mar 2, 2007, 05:16 PM
64-bit for FC-X?

My iMac G5 is ready! Huzzah!

/Insert sarcasm
MA.

Yes, am I the only one who finds it funny that many iMac users will not be able to use the latest program because their computer neither new enough or old enough :confused:

CmdrLaForge
Mar 2, 2007, 05:19 PM
Nice!!

Can't afford it but they are really competing with Avid with Final Cut Extreme. This rumor is like 1 year old let's hope it comes out this year.

If you read the comments on the blogs of the pros of the film industry then nobody believes there this rumor.

Anyway - its really time for new displays at better price points.

LethalWolfe
Mar 2, 2007, 05:25 PM
Can you imagine what Apple Final Cut Extreme plus a Red camera could do for the indie film market?
Not as much as you think it will. The biggest hurdle isn't acquisition it's distribution. Spike Lee can shoot a movie on MiniDV and get it into theaters. Joe Schmo can shoot on 35mm and the negative can just sit in his basement and get moldy. I think Red has the potential to change the cost of business, but I don't think it's going to drastically change how the business as a whole operates.

I mean, pretty much anyone can go to the local store and buy the "tools" to be a writer or artist (pen & paper), but that doesn't mean we can all get paid to write for a magazine or do animation for Disney.


The whole problem with the RED camera at maximum framerate and format size is bandwidth. The primary solution is capture to RED ramdisc, which as I understand it will capture some 30 minutes of video. If that is the case the FCE system becomes a store-forward content capture and edit station and has no real-time requirements to speak of.

AFAIK the REDRAM is only one of the on-board storage options. REDRAID (an on-board RAID) is another.

You're not wrong. AFAIK, they have never demonstrated a working prototype to the public. They've had a presence at some tradeshows (like NAB '06), but there was no camera there. Doesn't mean there won't be one, but since no one has seen it work, it's weird for a third party to already claim they will support it.
Footage has been shown to the public, and some people have gotten private hands on time w/the prototypes.

The big thing w/Red to help w/NLE support/workflow is the Redcine software which will take what you've shot and transcode it into pretty much any standard format. This allows you to offline in any format you want (even MiniDV) and then take your finished cut back to Redcine for the online.


Lethal

tk421
Mar 2, 2007, 05:31 PM
DVCProHD support came in FCP 4.5, back in April 2004 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/apr/18fcp.html).
...
Then I suppose you were talking about P2 support that goes above and beyond what's already there. Does cloning P2 cards in Disk Utility help you at all?

For the record, I edited DVC Pro footage in FCP a year or so ago. I also have a coworker that is currently editing P2 media in FCP. He elected to do so on FCP instead of Avid because he prefers FCP's P2 support.

Some of the complaints clearly come from people that haven't used FCP enough. I've found that with many Avid users. They say that something isn't in FCP that actually has been there for some time. Granted, there are some legitimate complaints, but the majority that I hear are just based on inaccurate or incomplete information.

milo
Mar 2, 2007, 05:32 PM
I remember last Summer when all the Core 2 Duo waiters were being poo pooed by the Core Duo earliest adopters 'cause 64-bit wouldn't matter for years ahead. Well so much for that theory. See ya. ;)


I'd be shocked if 6 didn't run on core duo machines (we all know how ridiculously inaccurate TS is). And it's not like Extreme is going to run well on any laptop (especially for uncompressed at high resolutions), core OR core 2. Even if it runs, your laptop screen isn't high enough resolution to even show that resolution anyway, and it probably runs best with more ram than any of the laptops can handle. It still seems like a non-issue to me.

aloofman
Mar 2, 2007, 05:34 PM
Footage has been shown to the public, and some people have gotten private hands on time w/the prototypes.

The big thing w/Red to help w/NLE support/workflow is the Redcine software which will take what you've shot and transcode it into pretty much any standard format. This allows you to offline in any format you want (even MiniDV) and then take your finished cut back to Redcine for the online.


Lethal

Sounds good. But again, there's no camera yet. Until they show a working one to everyone, it's just another promise from the Red people.

Rocketman
Mar 2, 2007, 05:43 PM
That's the point of ExpressCard/34 and 54, right? Are you talking about something like this (http://www.mobilityelectronics.com/expansion/products/)?

The rumors I have heard, directly in one report, and indirectly in the report in this thread, the "main card" in the MacPro has plugs. It has the SDI plugs but also has a PCI plug so the "daughter cards" can be supported on an external box but be on the PCI bus.

Something along this line:

http://www.amplicon.co.uk/dr-prod3.cfm/subsecid/10058/secid/5/groupId/10771.htm

Rocketman

Rocketman
Mar 2, 2007, 05:50 PM
Sounds good. But again, there's no camera yet. Until they show a working one to everyone, it's just another promise from the Red people.

Yes it is still Vaproware. But even you have to admit, it is really COOL vaporware, and the progress being made is exceptionally transparant and public. They even FINALLY promised a date for deliveries and upgrades. Something they have not officially missed even once yet.

Did I mention a game-changing camera for about 1/10 the going cost? I'll take that vaporware with a 2 month estimated first article delivery time.

Rocketman

Rod Rod
Mar 2, 2007, 05:55 PM
The rumors I have heard, directly in one report, and indirectly in the report in this thread, the "main card" in the MacPro has plugs. It has the SDI plugs but also has a PCI plug so the "daughter cards" can be supported on an external box but be on the PCI bus.

Something along this line:

http://www.amplicon.co.uk/dr-prod3.cfm/subsecid/10058/secid/5/groupId/10771.htm
Got it, so the answer was "yes" because that's what I linked to. Just click the left column and you'll see bigger boxes of PCI slots. Same thing, different site, only the link I provided is from the manufacturer and yours is from a reseller.

Alpinism
Mar 2, 2007, 07:35 PM
For the record, I edited DVC Pro footage in FCP a year or so ago.

With the current FCP 5.x.x, when you import .mxf files into your HD, FCP will have to convert .mxf to Quicktime. This defeats the purpose of tapeless P2 workflow. Currently FCP 5.X.X does not support native .mxf files.

DVCPRO HD is 100mbps, so u do the math for time needed to convert say a 60 minute .mxf to QT just so you can edit it with FCP.

As of recently, Avid, Liquid and EDIUS support .mxf natively and Premiere Pro with AXIO also supports .mxf natively. There is no reason why Apple should not support .mxf natively.

AidenShaw
Mar 2, 2007, 07:56 PM
My MacBook Pro is a core-duo, hence it is a 32 bit chip. I really hope Apple doesn't leave all us 32 bitters in the dust.
Didn't you see all of the "wait for Merom" threads here?

You'll see more "64-bit only" features coming along, time to put the 32-bit system on eBay!

Demoman
Mar 2, 2007, 07:58 PM
I never really cared for the marketing word "Extreme", especially since Taco Bell destroyed it a few years back.

(Hoping the new screens are all mutlitouch display, and Leopard's secret feature is, also, multitouch)

I do not care for marketing period....hate manipulation. However, I do not find this any more annoying than mangnum, ultra, ultimate, mega, brute-force, monster, hero (who isn't one nowadays), etc.

zimtheinvader
Mar 2, 2007, 08:05 PM
I think its valid to assert that many MBP owners bought the machine specifically to run Pro apps. Otherwise, how can you possibly justify the price difference (vs. Macbook.)?? That is Apple's high-est end workstation, and it is just that a WORKSTATION, Apple forgets this I think, making it all übersexy at the expense (formerly) of power. Several hundred to a thousand extra for a non-glossy screen and backlit keys and FW800?? It was a replacement for the Powerbook, a machine touted as "the first portable real-time effects Final Cut editor" back in the day.

Personally, I never picked one up 10% b/c my PB is still fine, 90% b/c they never explicitly stated whether it had a 64-bit cpu...
I'm glad someone finally came out and clearly stated that the C2D is finally 64-bit again, this is the REAL successor to the G4....

To anyone paying attention, Apple has long been gearing up for a total switch to 64-bit ("age of computing" or whatever)...

Ultimately, all this news this just makes the C2D Macbook an even more phenomenal value (imho)!!!!!

Will the redesigned Logic (music App) be fully 64-bit though?....

AidenShaw
Mar 2, 2007, 08:05 PM
Apple was in a hurry to switch to Intel processors. And, there were no 64-BIT processors to use at the time.
Actually, most of the newer Intel chips were already 64-bit when the announcement was made of the switch to Intel. (The early Intel developer systems were actually 64-bit chips, running in 32-bit mode.)

Jobs just wasn't able to take the big helping of crow that putting Netburst chips into a Mac would mean - so he waited for Yonah.

Which yes, was a stop-gap - but only because Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest came along on the early edge of their projections. Had Core 2 been 3 months later, then Yonah wouldn't have looked like a stop-gap.

AidenShaw
Mar 2, 2007, 08:09 PM
For buyers who care about specs (and had paid attention to Apple's deliberate 64-BIT push), it would have made more sense to never step backwards in any aspect and to have only moved forward.

But, since a 64-bit CPU is next to useless in 10.4 - it really didn't matter that they put the 32-bit OSX back on a 32-bit CPU!

AidenShaw
Mar 2, 2007, 08:15 PM
The only system that lost 64b capability was the iMac and the iMac only had a 64b CPU for a relatively short amount of time.

The huge towers also lost 64-bit capability.

Even though 10.4 on a G5 had limited 64-bit support, OSX on Intel has none whatsoever.

Apple's copy touting "64-bit Xeons" omits the footnote that says "software is 32-bit only" ;)

killr_b
Mar 2, 2007, 08:18 PM
I am excited. Yay. :D :D :D

Rocketman
Mar 2, 2007, 09:16 PM
I think its valid to assert that many MBP owners bought the machine specifically to run Pro apps. Otherwise, how can you possibly justify the price difference (vs. Macbook.)??


They bought the system to run the apps available the day of release ONLY (or earlier).

The resale value after MONTHS of productive use is far higher than any used PC. Live with the greatness that is Apple.

Need to upgrade? Fine. Do so and wonder in the low depreciation of the months of productive and HAPPY use.

Admit it. Running an Apple makes you HAPPY.

Rocketman

"Humor impaired" by stating the obvious.

AidenShaw
Mar 2, 2007, 09:31 PM
They bought the system to run the apps available the day of release ONLY (or earlier).

I'm sure that many Merom (AKA "Core 2") buyers were very aware that they were future-proofing a bit by buying a 64-bit CPU.

Most people look a bit to the future when making a large purchase. A corporate user spending someone else's money - maybe not. But most do....

brianbobcat
Mar 2, 2007, 10:33 PM
I'm willing to bet that we'll see a whole bunch of major updates, including FCP 6 and Mac Pros, but has everyone forgotten about the Xserve RAID? Remember this: http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/19/sata-based-xserve-raid-prototype-uncovered/ If FCXtreme is to really support 4K, it's already been talked about on this thread about storage. Well the RAID prototype had 6 fiber channel ports, would't that help with video? It also had SATA drives instead of the UltraATA, and while I don't know the differences, obviously SATA has to have something on UltraATA for apple to upgrade to them. A HD 17" MBP would be very sweet, and definitely possible as my quick research found that dell has had a true HD laptop out for a LONG while now, so why not apple? For all those of you going out to NAB, I wish I could go with but skipping college for a trade show where all I'd get to do is drool doesn't really spell academically responsible. This year is gonna be huge, not just for apple but for the whole show. I can't wait.

Oh and I forgot to mention, I have a core duo macbook pro, but I remember that the core duos and core2duos use the same socket. So if FCP6 comes out, and is in fact 64 bit only, AND there's some feature I really want or need, I think I'll just pop over to newegg and buy myself a core2duo then upgrade my comp, or course voiding the warranty in the process. Who knows, maybe I'll even upgrade my wifi card to an N for the future since I'd have the comp open already. At that point I'll have a 9 month old laptop, and the only thing the current 17" MBP will have on me will be 1GB extra of RAM.

-Brian

ChrisA
Mar 2, 2007, 10:39 PM
I'm sure that many Merom (AKA "Core 2") buyers were very aware that they were future-proofing a bit by buying a 64-bit CPU.

64 bit or not, do you really plan to edit 4K video on a notebook? If we believe this rumor then not even the Mac Pro is up to that task, not without adding a kilo-bucks worth of additional hardware. I've still not found anything a 64-bit MBP can do the other one can't. A bit faster overall yes.

If using a MBP, were would you put the scratch disk? the internal drive is not fast enough for uncompressed 4k video.

There is no way Apple will require 64-bits for FCP6, only for FCP extreme and the exotic formats.

Rocketman
Mar 2, 2007, 10:40 PM
I'm sure that many Merom (AKA "Core 2") buyers were very aware that they were future-proofing a bit by buying a 64-bit CPU.


That was a disclosed consideration on macrumors.com whether or not it was on Apple.com, which I believe it also was.

Rocketman

Rocketman
Mar 2, 2007, 10:45 PM
Oh and I forgot to mention, I have a core duo macbook pro, but I remember that the core duos and core2duos use the same socket. So if FCP6 comes out, and is in fact 64 bit only, AND there's some feature I really want or need, I think I'll just pop over to newegg and buy myself a core2duo then upgrade my comp, or course voiding the warranty in the process.

Ummm. Don't want to piss you off but it is soldered on and NOT in a plug.

Think: Apple, sell your CPU and buy the party line upgrade. That is both the upside and downside of such a "closed system". The good news? Resale values on Apple Computers are far and away higher than any brand ever.

It's like owning a BMW or a Mercedes. The lease costs are lower :)

Rocketman

wizard
Mar 2, 2007, 11:34 PM
I can't possibly understand how any 32 bit Macbook buyer could possibly complain. Everybody and their brother on this forum and just about every other forum on the net has strived to point out the direction that the computing world is moving in. 64 bit multi core processing is no longer the future, it is todays reality. More so it has been a reality for a year now!

So to put it bluntly, anybody complaining about their "32 bit Pro" machine should really just close their mouths and acknowledge that they can't listen. In any event as others have pointed out you won't be doing much pro editing on any of Apples current portables Pro or not.

Thanks
Dave

theWholeTruth
Mar 2, 2007, 11:45 PM
With the current FCP 5.x.x, when you import .mxf files into your HD, FCP will have to convert .mxf to Quicktime. This defeats the purpose of tapeless P2 workflow. Currently FCP 5.X.X does not support native .mxf files.

DVCPRO HD is 100mbps, so u do the math for time needed to convert say a 60 minute .mxf to QT just so you can edit it with FCP.

As of recently, Avid, Liquid and EDIUS support .mxf natively and Premiere Pro with AXIO also supports .mxf natively. There is no reason why Apple should not support .mxf natively.

You do realize that importing mxf files into AVID takes time as well. It's not instantaneous. From my experience, it's around 1/5 and slower the time it takes to digitize.

As for FCP, importing takes time as well. I don't know if it's a 'conversion' per se, but FCP does put a QT wrapper on the file. Remember if you copy from the P2 card to your HD, and then import into FCP, you're adding an extra step.

Either way, this hardly defeats the purpose of tapeless workflow. If you really think that, enjoy the old routine of diging and going out for coffee...once tapeless workflow is the norm, I'm sure my coffee consumption will drop heavily.:)

A is jump
Mar 3, 2007, 12:04 AM
Yes, it was interesting how Apple wouldn't acknowledge in any public documents whether the CoreDuo was 32-BIT or 64-BIT. It was just left unmentioned.

By not mentioning it at all, it looked as if:

1) They knew people would be less interested if they knew
2) They were deliberately hiding it

In terms of technology, it was as if we had stepped-back to the G4 in order to move forwards. Sure, it was faster, dual-core, and more powerful than the G4. But, essentially it was stepping back two steps to move forward 3.

For buyers who care about specs (and had paid attention to Apple's deliberate 64-BIT push), it would have made more sense to never step backwards in any aspect and to have only moved forward. In other words, go from 64-BIT to 64-BIT and then advance.

uh... dudes... its not like powerbooks were 64 bit. and if you don't think that releasing the core duo was a huge improvement, you didnt own a powerbook. I still do, and I'm aching for more power, and I dont even work with video. everyone was aching for a better apple notebook, and in my opinion, they took their sweet time.
so your last point only holds true for the imacs. and companies don't often advertize what their products CAN'T do. If it was really that big of a deal, the people who bought the core duo imacs should have been investigating it.

brianbobcat
Mar 3, 2007, 12:33 AM
Thinking about it now, Rocketman, you are correct. I was thinking of the mac minis or iMacs where the cores are socketed, but now recalling all the fuss of the thermal paste, I remember seeing those pics and there was no socket. I guess that means no C2D and 802.11N for me for now. Meh, that's fine, as long as I don't "need" FCP6. I've never thought about doing 4K on my MBP for the simple reason I have a HDV camera, and that's plenty resolution for me I don't, and won't be spending mega bucks on Red or any other super high end camera. Anyone complaining about not being able to fun Extreme on a laptop is using the wrong system, even though they could hook up to an external display via DVI and external drives via the ExpressCard, but still nowhere close to an ideal setup. If you can spend the money on Extreme, you can buy the top of the line Mac Pro.

Thanks for the clarification rocketman.
-Brian

dAlen
Mar 3, 2007, 01:07 AM
As far as I know that RED camera is still vaporware.
am i wrong on that?

hmmm....they are testing and shooting and showing footage from it.
I think it starts to ship to people with reservations at NAB...so lets wait and see how it pans out.

Someone mentioned who would edit 4k on a laptop...I will say it like I did a few years back...I would.

Not long ago, before Pismo (lombard?) - apple laptop - you couldnt video edit...and not much before then, you couldnt use photoshop...

Its not a matter of if, but when.

Also, about 64 bit not needed for sometime...ahahahahahhahah
Maya (is 64bit compatible for windows but not mac because the mac isnt ready for it) Now with Video, it is welcome, etc.

there is a lot to benefit from 64bit...so its not a future thing.

Sometimes consumers say, "my spread sheet works fast enough...no more is needed..." there is so much more going on in the world than spreadsheets.

Reminds me of the pixel debate for cameras. (dslrs)
Most people, "8 megapixel or 10 is all I need"...o.k, for you, but to try to prove that there is no need for more is silly. I personally like hassleblads medium format 39megapixel camera...

So, its about time...and about what you do.

Again, as far as red...it will be released...vaporware has a bad taste usually when said...wait for NAB.

Peace

dAlen

Analog Kid
Mar 3, 2007, 01:52 AM
Also, about 64 bit not needed for sometime...ahahahahahhahah
Maya (is 64bit compatible for windows but not mac because the mac isnt ready for it) Now with Video, it is welcome, etc.

there is a lot to benefit from 64bit...so its not a future thing.

I can't believe the 64bit debate is happening again. The primary benefit of the current 64bit processors is memory depth. This is good for huge volumes of video data and enormous databases but doesn't mean squat for spreadsheets, word processors, or most of what people do today.

That said, Apple claims to have gone 64bit in their GUI for Leopard and I'd love to know what that accomplishes beyond marketing cachet. My guess is that it simply means the processor doesn't need to keep changing addressing modes which gives a small benefit on a 64bit processor. Maybe there's an optimization there that I'm not aware of like being able to blit a couple pixels at a time, but 64 bit integers just don't seem important for graphics.

bretm
Mar 3, 2007, 01:54 AM
With the current FCP 5.x.x, when you import .mxf files into your HD, FCP will have to convert .mxf to Quicktime. This defeats the purpose of tapeless P2 workflow. Currently FCP 5.X.X does not support native .mxf files.

DVCPRO HD is 100mbps, so u do the math for time needed to convert say a 60 minute .mxf to QT just so you can edit it with FCP.

As of recently, Avid, Liquid and EDIUS support .mxf natively and Premiere Pro with AXIO also supports .mxf natively. There is no reason why Apple should not support .mxf natively.

Doesn't matter that it supports it natively or whether it has to convert it. You still have to pick and choose shots to copy to your local system. Unless you're nuts and are actually editing straight off the original mxfs. That's your "tape." In fact, most people dump it to a drive completely, then transfer from that drive to edit system (either entirely or selects), and then backup the footage again at the end of a project. Any which way to do it there's going to be a lot of file copying.

Lucy Brown
Mar 3, 2007, 04:13 AM
hmmm....they are testing and shooting and showing footage from it.
I think it starts to ship to people with reservations at NAB...so lets wait and see how it pans out.

Someone mentioned who would edit 4k on a laptop...I will say it like I did a few years back...I would.

Not long ago, before Pismo (lombard?) - apple laptop - you couldnt video edit...and not much before then, you couldnt use photoshop...

Its not a matter of if, but when.

Also, about 64 bit not needed for sometime...ahahahahahhahah
Maya (is 64bit compatible for windows but not mac because the mac isnt ready for it) Now with Video, it is welcome, etc.

there is a lot to benefit from 64bit...so its not a future thing.

Sometimes consumers say, "my spread sheet works fast enough...no more is needed..." there is so much more going on in the world than spreadsheets.

Reminds me of the pixel debate for cameras. (dslrs)
Most people, "8 megapixel or 10 is all I need"...o.k, for you, but to try to prove that there is no need for more is silly. I personally like hassleblads medium format 39megapixel camera...

Depends on your needs. Most people dont need more than 6 to 8 megapixels. Depends how large of print you need. If your just posting web galaries what do you need more than 6 mp for?.......

So, its about time...and about what you do.

Again, as far as red...it will be released...vaporware has a bad taste usually when said...wait for NAB.

Peace

dAlen
Most people dont need anymore than 6mp. They just think they do.

aswitcher
Mar 3, 2007, 04:28 AM
I cant imagine they will release HD screens until Leopard is ready...and Leopard is a ways off it would seem.

Definetly would like to see Apple be more competitive in their screen prices.

aswitcher
Mar 3, 2007, 04:30 AM
Most people dont need anymore than 6mp. They just think they do.

"No one will ever need more than 6.4MP" :)

Rod Rod
Mar 3, 2007, 05:32 AM
Again, as far as red...it will be released...vaporware has a bad taste usually when said...wait for NAB.
That's a poem with ABAB rhyme scheme.

CmdrLaForge
Mar 3, 2007, 06:16 AM
As far as I know that RED camera is still vaporware.
am i wrong on that?

Red will start delivering the first units at NAB.

Jim posted a lengthy piece on Reduser.net summarizing the State of Red
Summary:

CAMERAS AND SHIPPING STATUS:

-first units anticipated to be delivered "around NAB"
-the first 100 or so will not be feature complete (more on that further down)
-all cameras field firmware/software upgradeable to add missing features
-all features expected functional by June or July
-production ramp up to be slower than originally guessed - meaning take longer to catch up on all backorders/reservations
-they THINK they can fulfill all reservations by Sept/Oct timeframe
-Redcine, EVF, LCD, drives & rails all available when the cameras are shipping
-110% refund to any dissatisfied reservation holders after NAB
-full price list of everything announced in 2 weeks

NAB

-WORKING CAMERAS IN THE BOOTH AT NAB
-Sony 4K projector in booth, projecting 4K
-full shooting/capture/workflow demos in booth
-"significant announcements" at NAB - partnerships, etc.

Nugget
Mar 3, 2007, 06:55 AM
That said, Apple claims to have gone 64bit in their GUI for Leopard and I'd love to know what that accomplishes beyond marketing cachet.

The benefit here is staggering. Without a true 64 bit GUI in Leopard you couldn't have a 64 bit Final Cut Studio. Under Tiger the only way to develop a 64 bit application is to build your application as a 64 bit Unix app with no Aqua and then communicate with that faceless engine using a traditional 32-bit Aqua user interface application. You can't link the 32 bit Aqua libraries into a 64 bit application at present.

Moving the GUI to 64 bit means that application developers can now develop 64 bit applications (like databases, video editing software, photo editing software, etc...) that have GUI interfaces.

Analog Kid
Mar 3, 2007, 07:03 AM
The benefit here is staggering. Without a true 64 bit GUI in Leopard you couldn't have a 64 bit Final Cut Studio. Under Tiger the only way to develop a 64 bit application is to build your application as a 64 bit Unix app with no Aqua and then communicate with that faceless engine using a traditional 32-bit Aqua user interface application. You can't link the 32 bit Aqua libraries into a 64 bit application at present.

Moving the GUI to 64 bit means that application developers can now develop 64 bit applications (like databases, video editing software, photo editing software, etc...) that have GUI interfaces.
Seriously? So it has nothing to do with GUI performance, but with the ability to build integrated apps... Well that is a big deal.

Thanks.

Evangelion
Mar 3, 2007, 08:00 AM
(Hoping the new screens are all mutlitouch display, and Leopard's secret feature is, also, multitouch)

I have actually been thinking about that recently, and I agree. Even though I did dismiss touchscreen as useless a while ago. I would just LOVE to see Apple move Multitouch to their entire product-line! Why leave it at just iPhone/iPod? Why not put it in iMac, laptops and Cinema Displays as well?

They couldn't have demonstrated Multitouch in Leopard yet, since it would also mean announcing new hardware that supports that feature. They are not yet ready to do that, so they kept Multitouch under wraps for now. Soon they will release new displays and laptops, and they could at the same time announce the "top secret" feature of Leopard: Multitouch-UI.

Hey, one can dream, right?

shawnce
Mar 3, 2007, 09:49 AM
The huge towers also lost 64-bit capability. Obviously I am talking about the processor not any software that ran on it. You also just said the 10.4's support for 64 bit wasn't useful.

shawnce
Mar 3, 2007, 09:57 AM
I can't believe the 64bit debate is happening again. The primary benefit of the current 64bit processors is memory depth. This is good for huge volumes of video data and enormous databases but doesn't mean squat for spreadsheets, word processors, or most of what people do today. In the case of x86-64 you also can get better performance for applications that don't need such a large memory space. The primary reasons are the following: 2x the number of registers under programmer/compiler control, using registers to pass parameters in function calls, better support of PIC, and of course native support for 64 bit integer types.

As an example (notice how few instructions x86_64 takes and how many parameters are passed via registers... aka no need for the called function to read back those off the stack)...

void foo(int i1, float f1, double d1, short s1, double d2,
unsigned char c1, unsigned short s2, float f2, int i2)
{
printf("");
}

int main (int argc, const char * argv[]) {
int i1;
float f1;
double d1;
short s1;
double d2;
unsigned char c1;
unsigned short s2;
float f2;
int i2;

foo(i1,f1,d1,s1,d2,c1,s2,f2,i2);

return 0;
}

x86
pushl %ebp
movl %esp, %ebp
pushl %esi
subl $100, %esp
movzwl -18(%ebp), %edx
movzbl -19(%ebp), %ecx
movswl -34(%ebp),%esi
movl -12(%ebp), %eax
movl %eax, 40(%esp) >> i2 (on stack)
movl -16(%ebp), %eax
movl %eax, 36(%esp) >> f2 (on stack)
movl %edx, 32(%esp) >> s2 (on stack)
movl %ecx, 28(%esp) >> c1 (on stack)
movsd -32(%ebp), %xmm0
movsd %xmm0, 20(%esp) >> d2 (on stack)
movl %esi, 16(%esp) >> s1 (on stack)
movsd -48(%ebp), %xmm0
movsd %xmm0, 8(%esp) >> d1 (on stack)
movl -52(%ebp), %eax
movl %eax, 4(%esp) >> f1 (on stack)
movl -56(%ebp), %eax
movl %eax, (%esp) >> i1 (on stack)
call _foo

PowerPC
mflr r0
stmw r30,-8(r1)
stw r0,8(r1)
stwu r1,-144(r1)
mr r30,r1
stw r3,168(r30)
stw r4,172(r30)
lhz r0,96(r30)
extsh r2,r0
lbz r0,82(r30)
rlwinm r9,r0,0,0xff
lhz r0,80(r30)
rlwinm r0,r0,0,0xffff
stw r0,56(r1) >> s2 (on stack)
lwz r0,72(r30)
stw r0,64(r1) >> i2 (on stack)
lwz r3,116(r30) >> i1
lfs f1,112(r30) >> f1
lfd f2,104(r30) >> d1
mr r7,r2 >> s1
lfd f3,88(r30) >> d2
mr r10,r9 >> c1
lfs f4,76(r30) >> f2
bl _foo

x86-64
movzwl -10(%rbp), %ecx >> s2
movzbl -11(%rbp), %edx >> c1
movswl -26(%rbp),%esi >> s1
movl -4(%rbp), %eax
movss -8(%rbp), %xmm0
movsd -24(%rbp), %xmm1
movsd -40(%rbp), %xmm4
movss -44(%rbp), %xmm5
movl -48(%rbp), %edi >> i1
movl %eax, %r8d >> i2 (on stack)
movaps %xmm0, %xmm3 >> f2
movapd %xmm1, %xmm2 >> d2
movapd %xmm4, %xmm1 >> d1
movaps %xmm5, %xmm0 >> f1
call _foo

shawnce
Mar 3, 2007, 10:08 AM
Seriously? So it has nothing to do with GUI performance, but with the ability to build integrated apps... Well that is a big deal. No it has a to do with performance as well... and allowing developers to more easily make applications that need to work with large data sets (modern media editing applications are such things now... they are working with large numbers of large images, streams of video with rendered effects, etc.)

ART5000
Mar 3, 2007, 11:05 AM
The benefit here is staggering. Without a true 64 bit GUI in Leopard you couldn't have a 64 bit Final Cut Studio. Under Tiger the only way to develop a 64 bit application is to build your application as a 64 bit Unix app with no Aqua and then communicate with that faceless engine using a traditional 32-bit Aqua user interface application. You can't link the 32 bit Aqua libraries into a 64 bit application at present.

Moving the GUI to 64 bit means that application developers can now develop 64 bit applications (like databases, video editing software, photo editing software, etc...) that have GUI interfaces.

What spped bumps are we talking about here within FCP6 rendering? 10X, 20X, 100X?

64bit fcp seems like such a leap! I've been looking forward to this for years.

deus-ex-mac
Mar 3, 2007, 12:35 PM
plus? The biggest horizontal resolution listed for "4k" on wikipedia is 4096, and the biggest vertical is 2664. So assuming a 16:9 form factor, a display capable of handling all these resolutions would have to be at least 4736x2664.

On a side note, what's with the designation "4k"? Sometimes these industry terms seem designed to deliberately confuse...

These terms come actually from film scanning formats, nothing to do with computers or any existing video format.

4K is considered the scanning resolution (4096x3072) at which there is no visible loss of quality when scanning 35 mm film. However, the industry generally works at half that rez -yes, it's called 2K- basically because visual
quality will be normally the same but at a fraction of the storage capacity needed.

And yes, both 4K and 2K (you're right, 2K is exactly 4K/2) are 4:3 formats, simply because so is 35 mm film negative. There are many variants on this, but basically what happens is that you crop the top and bottom of the frame, to get to 16:9-ish formats. This allows for what's called "re-framing", that is, moving the frame behind the 16:9-ish mask to get rid of boom mics and things like that.

So basically a 4096x3072 screen will be able to display a full frame at 4K ("full meaning before masking") -more than enough.

About the ability to actually play realtime 2K or 4K frames... well of course that needs some serious disks systems, although I was happy to learn at a recent expo about some companies offering raid systems fit to the task for not such a huge amount of cash considering what we are talking about. :D



"Detras de nuestras mascaras estamos vosotros"

AidenShaw
Mar 3, 2007, 03:45 PM
You also just said the 10.4's support for 64 bit wasn't useful.
But that didn't stop the Apple Marketing Machine from full-court 64-bit hype, did it?

And, I said that 64-bit in 10.4 was "next to useless". There are some cases where there's at least a theoretical benefit. Even that was lost in the Intel migration, however.

You said that the iMac was the only system that lost 64-bit capability. It was the only system that lost a 64-bit processor, but not the only system to lose 64-bit support.

SMM
Mar 3, 2007, 04:25 PM
I'm sure that many Merom (AKA "Core 2") buyers were very aware that they were future-proofing a bit by buying a 64-bit CPU.

Most people look a bit to the future when making a large purchase. A corporate user spending someone else's money - maybe not. But most do....

I am an IT Manager. I decide what we buy, but not always when we buy it. We definitely approach the decision from a strategic perspective. But, you are right. Many of my contemporaries do not apply much 'forward thinking' to their purchases. Years of observation have led me to hypothesize, the more layers of approval, a purchasing decision requires, the worse they become.

SMM
Mar 3, 2007, 04:41 PM
I can't possibly understand how any 32 bit Macbook buyer could possibly complain. Everybody and their brother on this forum and just about every other forum on the net has strived to point out the direction that the computing world is moving in. 64 bit multi core processing is no longer the future, it is todays reality. More so it has been a reality for a year now!

So to put it bluntly, anybody complaining about their "32 bit Pro" machine should really just close their mouths and acknowledge that they can't listen. In any event as others have pointed out you won't be doing much pro editing on any of Apples current portables Pro or not.

Thanks
Dave

I remember similar discussions, moving from 16 bit to 32 bit (circa 386/486). When the 486 was introduced, SW had really not even exploited the capabilities of the 386. Many technical journalists basically said the new technology was a waste of money for the vast user community. My sense was that 32 bit OS and apps would not arrive until there was a sufficient final incentive for developers to create them. Thus, the SW would always follow the hardware. Certainly this is self-evident and not particularly original.

G.Kirby
Mar 3, 2007, 06:10 PM
I think what the pro line needs are TFT screens that can show and hold the AdobeRGB colour space. The current colour gamut on the Mac screens is fine for home use but poor for the Pro market. You can get true sRGB monitors but they are way expensive. I would like to see Apple push into this area, giving designer’s etc a tool to help do their job properly. After all, everyone can be fussy over colour especially if it is on their company logo.

Pooldraft
Mar 3, 2007, 06:43 PM
I know one thing 64bit should be the standard by now.

HD displays are nice.

Video editing on the MacBook Pro I am not sure about. Maybe Santa Rosa will be able to handle this, but I am not sure. MacBook Pro is going to need a lot of help to be pusing those kinds of graphics and the app churning. I hope this works out.

I am waiting for an iMac that is 30" and a better resolution, C2D, TV in card, BlueRay/HDDVD drive. Any else would be uncivilized.:eek:

-Jesse

twoodcc
Mar 3, 2007, 08:27 PM
great news! i can't afford it, but maybe one day :)

Nicky G
Mar 3, 2007, 08:28 PM
With the current FCP 5.x.x, when you import .mxf files into your HD, FCP will have to convert .mxf to Quicktime. This defeats the purpose of tapeless P2 workflow. Currently FCP 5.X.X does not support native .mxf files.

DVCPRO HD is 100mbps, so u do the math for time needed to convert say a 60 minute .mxf to QT just so you can edit it with FCP.

As of recently, Avid, Liquid and EDIUS support .mxf natively and Premiere Pro with AXIO also supports .mxf natively. There is no reason why Apple should not support .mxf natively.

How exactly does re-wrapping an .mxf as Quicktime, while keeping the essence the same, defeat the tapeless workflow? Especially considering how slick the P2 interface in FCP is, or how fast the import/conversion process is on a modern Mac? I'd love to hear you explain it, if you could. Maybe you meant working in acquisition-native format? Which FCP is more or less the king of? Remember again, FCP deals with DVCPROHD 100% natively, Kona even accelerates the performance -- you are simply re-wrapping the essences of the file. It's not a long, drawn-out conversion process that degrades the quality of the video in any way -- it is 100% native on the codec level.

ART5000
Mar 3, 2007, 10:02 PM
Does anyone have any "intelligence" on the real speed gains of fcp in its speculated 64bit outfit?:cool:

Analog Kid
Mar 3, 2007, 10:54 PM
In the case of x86-64 you also can get better performance for applications that don't need such a large memory space. The primary reasons are the following: 2x the number of registers under programmer/compiler control, using registers to pass parameters in function calls, better support of PIC, and of course native support for 64 bit integer types.

As an example (notice how few instructions x86_64 takes and how many parameters are passed via registers... aka no need for the called function to read back those off the stack)...

Ok, so we saved 8 instructions before a function call with more than that likely has hundreds or thousands of them. A benefit, yes, but not a revolutionary one and not one that really has anything to do with word size.

The main benefit of 64bit CPUs is still memory depth-- that's inherent in the increased pointer width. 64bit integer math is another inherent benefit, but not one that has much applicability (how often do you code long long's?).
No it has a to do with performance as well... and allowing developers to more easily make applications that need to work with large data sets (modern media editing applications are such things now... they are working with large numbers of large images, streams of video with rendered effects, etc.)
"allowing developers to more easily make applications that need to work with large data sets"-- that's what I said. It's not that the GUI operates faster, it just makes it easier to build integrated applications where the 64bit portion isn't running as a separate process...

Henriok
Mar 4, 2007, 11:31 AM
The x86 world saw up to 20% speed increase for moving to 64-bit capable processors. None of it came from the 64-bitness, but from the fact that such processors had twice the ammount of processor (small memory slots deep inside the vey core of the processor).

The other benefit came from using large ammount of RAM, more than 4 GB. This is not just physical RAM but page files in the operating system's virtual memory.

In these two cases a 64-bit x86 processor will get som speed increases even if the computer doesn't have more than 4 GB installed. In fact.. the supporting chipsets of some 64-bit version of x86 processors is so bad architectural wise that operating systems can hardly use more than 3 GB anyway. Such is the case in iMacs and MacBook Pros, not the Mac Pro. That's why you can't buy such systems with more than 3 GB RAM. If you put in 4 GB, it wouldn't use more than 3 anyway. PowerPC systems doesn't have this limitation, the operating systems will and can use up to 4 GB RAM on 32 bit systems.

So.. what speeds can we expect from a 64 bit version of FCP? At least 20% for starters. With a true 64-bit operating system (Leopard) we'll see additional speed ups due to a new memory sub systems with a more efficient paging model (+5-10%). If you then have the RAM that match the new paging system (>4GB) then you'll reap the real benefits of 64-bitness where you probably could see some serious acceleration.

If one were to study benchmarks from running 32- and 64-bit versions in 32-bit and 64-bit Windows on 64-bit hardware, you hardly see any speed ups. I think this is due to the fact that developers really hasn't started buildning aplications for 64-bit architectures yet. If one were to really optimize things there would be some serious rewriting of some very low level stuff in applications so they simpley havn't doen it just yet. Apple and Mac developers are relying quite heavily on exernal frameworks for some of this (at least they should) and we might get to see better utilization of the 64-bit features. I wouldn't expect more than a 20% gain though.

Take Photoshop for example.. Adobe won't go 64 bit until CS4 at the earliest.. They virtual memory structure is so archaic and integrate in the product that they just can't replace it with one that can access more than 2 GB of RAM. Too bad.

AidenShaw
Mar 4, 2007, 11:54 AM
the supporting chipsets of some 64-bit version of x86 processors is so bad architectural wise that operating systems can hardly use more than 3 GB anyway. Such is the case in iMacs and MacBook Pros...
The term "bad" is a bit strong - it's just that the low end mobile-based chipsets have 32-bit physical addressing. Some address space has to be reserved for OS uses (such as I/O pages, mapping the video ram, ...) - therefore these mobile chipsets can't utilize all of 4 GiB of RAM.

It's not "bad" (as in defective) design - it was a tradeoff that was made for mobile systems.

The next generation (Santa Rosa) of mobile chipsets has additional memory addressing, and can support more than 4 GiB.

PowerPC systems doesn't have this limitation, the operating systems will and can use up to 4 GB RAM on 32 bit systems.
Really? Please tell me which PowerPC G4 systems (32-bit) supported more than 2 GiB of RAM?

Only the 64-bit PPC970 (G5) broke the 2 GiB barrier, as far as I can tell looking at Apple History. http://www.apple-history.com/body.php?page=gallery&model=g4_800&performa=off&sort=date&order=ASC

(By the way, 32-bit Windows and Linux operating systems on 32-bit CPUs support up to 64 GiB of RAM when used with a chipset that supports the 36-bit addressing extension (PAE). 32-bit PowerPC has a similar 36-bit addressing extension, but Apple never supported the feature.)

powermac_daddy
Mar 4, 2007, 03:21 PM
i'm waiting for the new macbook pro with 10.5.

where are you?

avkills
Mar 5, 2007, 08:45 AM
How exactly does re-wrapping an .mxf as Quicktime, while keeping the essence the same, defeat the tapeless workflow? Especially considering how slick the P2 interface in FCP is, or how fast the import/conversion process is on a modern Mac? I'd love to hear you explain it, if you could. Maybe you meant working in acquisition-native format? Which FCP is more or less the king of? Remember again, FCP deals with DVCPROHD 100% natively, Kona even accelerates the performance -- you are simply re-wrapping the essences of the file. It's not a long, drawn-out conversion process that degrades the quality of the video in any way -- it is 100% native on the codec level.

Yeah this Alpinism guy is nuts; Panasonic's own web site even touts FCP as being usable with P2 tech. I would bet my whole edit suite that copying the video files from the P2 card to my edit drives and then importing them into FCP whether it re-wraps it into QT or not, is still a lot faster than doing a real time digitize in FCP over Firewire from the camera reading the P2 cards.

-mark

shawnce
Mar 5, 2007, 10:47 AM
Ok, so we saved 8 instructions before a function call with more than that likely has hundreds or thousands of them. A benefit, yes, but not a revolutionary one and not one that really has anything to do with word size.

...and those parameters are passed in registers which can reduce pressure on the memory system (usually L1). It doesn't have anything to do with word size but it is a capability enabled when x86-64 is operating in 64b mode.

The main benefit of 64bit CPUs is still memory depth-- that's inherent in the increased pointer width. 64bit integer math is another inherent benefit, but not one that has much applicability (how often do you code long long's?). 64 bit ints are used a lot more then you may think these days.

My point is that while x86-64 allows a large memory space it allows secondary capabilities that can improve performance (in specific real-world cases 2x if not a little more).

"allowing developers to more easily make applications that need to work with large data sets"-- that's what I said. It's not that the GUI operates faster, it just makes it easier to build integrated applications where the 64bit portion isn't running as a separate process... Which is wrong. It is both (in the case of x86-64).... better performing and easier to implement... which is my point.

AidenShaw
Mar 5, 2007, 10:55 AM
64 bit ints are used a lot more then you may think these days.
True, for example most filesystems are all 64-bit (you can tell the 32-bit filesystems - they're the ones that can't support files greater than 2 GiB or 4 GiB).

On the other hand, doing an occasional 64-bit integer calculation on a superscalar superpipelined 32-bit CPU isn't significantly slower than doing it on a 64-bit CPU. (The key word is "occasional".)

There are examples of programs that make heavy use of 64-bit integers, but they're not important to most users.

Alpinism
Mar 5, 2007, 11:56 AM
Yeah this Alpinism guy is nuts; Panasonic's own web site even touts FCP as being usable with P2 tech. I would bet my whole edit suite that copying the video files from the P2 card to my edit drives and then importing them into FCP whether it re-wraps it into QT or not, is still a lot faster than doing a real time digitize in FCP over Firewire from the camera reading the P2 cards.

-mark

Obviously you guys never worked with DVCPRO HD codec at all.

I never mentioned editing straight from P2 card nor firestore. As of right now, importing .mfx files
from a p2 card to FCP will required wrapping up mfx files with QT wrapper. THAT TAKES CPU TIME.

Where by with native support, you dont need no wrapper. Like in EDius, Premiere Pro with Matrox Axio and Avid where you simply drag the downloaded footage to FCP and start EDITING.

THat is also why current Firestore owner has to pay $49 for upgrade to firmware 3.0 to enable native support. Meaning firestore will wrap all mfx files with QT wrapper so you wont waste your time doing it with FCP.

If you never worked with DVCPRO HD codec , please dont go mouth off based on some brochures.

AND GO BACK TO YOUR 4:2:0 25mbps HDV !! :p

cnoellert
Mar 5, 2007, 02:11 PM
plus? The biggest horizontal resolution listed for "4k" on wikipedia is 4096, and the biggest vertical is 2664. So assuming a 16:9 form factor, a display capable of handling all these resolutions would have to be at least 4736x2664.

On a side note, what's with the designation "4k"? Sometimes these industry terms seem designed to deliberately confuse...

The term 4k orignated from the scanning of film negative in data scanners such as the oxberry and cineon systems. Arguably the highest 4k res for scanning refered to Super35mm ocn (also known as Full ap 35mm) which at 4k is 4096x3112.

The rumor says uncompressed but it doesn't say at what bit depth. The bulk of people working in DI assume that 10bits per componet such as the DPX or Cineon standard are the norm. Each file in full ap 4k uncompressed in 10bit is around 40 megs a pop. Arguably you want to play 24-30 of them a second, leads to around 1 gigabyte per second from disk in to memory. This is most likely where the 64bit requirement will come in to play. You going to need to have a ton of ram available to the system in order to anything usefull with all of those frames.

That is hard core and there are only a handfull (as in less than five) systems available in world that can do it. There's even fewer true 4k monitoring options. This rumor - if true - is ****ing momentous.

Chris

--
Chris Noellert
Senior Flame / Digital Post Technical Director

Nordiskfilm Post Production Stockholm
(Formerly Filmteknik/Frithiof Film to Video. AB)
Tulvaktsvagen 2
115 40 Stockholm

Tel: +46 8 450 450 00
Fax: +46 8 450 450 01
Dir: +46 8 450 450 17
Mob: +46 7 024 616 31
AIM: cmnoellert

Reel: http://se.nordiskfilm-postproduction.com/movieviewer.aspx?movie=Video_250018.mov
Web: http://www.nordiskfilm-postproduction.com

MacRumorUser
Mar 5, 2007, 04:43 PM
Ouch, those are some strict system requirements. If my MacBook Pro can't run Final Cut Pro 6, I'll be pretty damn upset.

Yep was thinking the same.

Our main mac used for video editing our projects is an iMac Core Duo and a MacBook when on the field.

Whilst I do have a mac pro it is never ever used for video editing, only the occasional Motion project.

Video editing generally doesnt have such need for really high technical specifications so I'm very skeptical about this requirement for 64 bit processor. Surely apple wouldnt be so silly as to cut out a huge market.

If they are, then they have lost me - as I simply will stick with Fincal Cut Studio.

DMann
Mar 5, 2007, 05:13 PM
Yep was thinking the same.

Our main mac used for video editing our projects is an iMac Core Duo and a MacBook when on the field.

Whilst I do have a mac pro it is never ever used for video editing, only the occasional Motion project.

Video editing generally doesnt have such need for really high technical specifications so I'm very skeptical about this requirement for 64 bit processor. Surely apple wouldnt be so silly as to cut out a huge market.

If they are, then they have lost me - as I simply will stick with Fincal Cut Studio.

We'll likely see a universal, if you will, version which supports both 32-bit and takes advantage of 64-bit processors.....

AidenShaw
Mar 5, 2007, 08:01 PM
We'll likely see a universal, if you will, version which supports both 32-bit and takes advantage of 64-bit processors.....

You'll need the Blu-ray drive...for the 10.5 software disc! :eek:

These extremely fat binaries (four complete images in each file - for 32-bit and 64-bit for both PPC and Intel) will fill a two layer DVD rather quickly ;)

DMann
Mar 5, 2007, 08:16 PM
You'll need the Blu-ray drive...for the 10.5 software disc! :eek:

These extremely fat binaries (four complete images in each file - for 32-bit and 64-bit for both PPC and Intel) will fill a two layer DVD rather quickly ;)

For FCS? didn't realize :o

Davowade
Mar 5, 2007, 08:33 PM
Well my work was going to get a new system for our second edit suite, but if we can get an 8 core mac pro with hardware accellerated FCP at NAB then that will go in my suite and they can have my quad in the other suite :D

*Crosses fingers and toes that NAB will be a big one this year*

LethalWolfe
Mar 5, 2007, 08:39 PM
Well my work was going to get a new system for our second edit suite, but if we can get an 8 core mac pro with hardware accellerated FCP at NAB then that will go in my suite and they can have my quad in the other suite :D

*Crosses fingers and toes that NAB will be a big one this year*
Even if these things are announced at NAB I wouldn't expect them to be shipping for a couple of months. And even once they are shipped it'll be a couple more months for the first point upgrade to come and fix the bugs in the initial release. So hopefully you weren't planning on getting a new machine anytime soon. ;)


Lethal

bigbossbmb
Mar 6, 2007, 10:54 AM
These extremely fat binaries (four complete images in each file - for 32-bit and 64-bit for both PPC and Intel) will fill a two layer DVD rather quickly ;)


Final Cut 5.1 came with 9 DVD's... adding a couple more isn't going to make a difference for them. I can definitely see this as a possibility. This way they keep it working on older machines, while using the latest pro machines at the full potential.