PDA

View Full Version : G5 Optimized Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, and Shake


MacRumors
Nov 18, 2003, 07:53 AM
On top of a 20" iMac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031118083916.shtml) and Dual 1.8GHz PowerMac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031118083735.shtml), Apple also released G5 optimized versions (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=SVBIZINK8.story&STORY=/www/story/11-18-2003/0002060573&EDATE=TUE+Nov+18+2003,+08:31+AM) of Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro and Shake:

The new G5-optimized Final
Cut Pro 4.1, Shake 3.0.1 and DVD Studio Pro 2.0.2, with the new Compressor
1.1 update, are immediately available for current Final Cut Pro 4, Shake 3 and
DVD Studio Pro 2 customers as free software updates from
http://www.apple.com/software/pro

JohnStrass
Nov 18, 2003, 07:56 AM
This is finally gonna get me off my butt and get a G5. I was skeptical about raw processor boosts with no good software tro take advantage of 64 bit. This is cool...

pixote
Nov 18, 2003, 08:24 AM
finally....I'm thinking of starting my own edit suite this summer and with this news and the prospect that the G5's will be at 3ghz by the fall I'm most likely going to go with Final Cut. With the money I save not buying an Avid Adrenaline I should be able to get some X Serve Raid and maybe Shake. Apple has the chance here to really make a move on the Pro side (not just with people cutting offline with DV). This also gives me hope that I could buy a used G5 next year and add a second suite. Good move apple.

gwuMACaddict
Nov 18, 2003, 08:34 AM
can't wait to see some benchmarks...

Ge4-ce
Nov 18, 2003, 08:43 AM
Let me guess..

Next:

Dual 1.8 (or single 1.8)
Dual 2.0
Dual 2.5 in January

Dual 2.0
Dual 2.5
Dual 3.0 in september

You would be crazy to buy a 1.6 Ghz now.. At least go with the dual 1.8 wich is good price/performance!

I will go with the Dual 2.5 in January.. I simply cannot wait until september! :D (and don't want a first generation dual 2.0)

Foxer
Nov 18, 2003, 08:54 AM
Guess it is time to drop the dime and upgrade from FCP 3.

abdul
Nov 18, 2003, 09:02 AM
im getting confused. is shalke the same as renderman? it just seems they are both used on the same films e.g lotr and ice age as well as many more.

now that renderman ois on the mac, why is apple making it so hard for pixar to compete?

SiliconAddict
Nov 18, 2003, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Macrumors
G5 optimized versions[/url] of Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro


Hence the reason I will be waiting for a G5 to show up in a PowerBook.

G5 optimized

You are going to see that moniker more frequently now that the G5 is THE CPU of choice.

xtekdiver
Nov 18, 2003, 09:16 AM
Is it just me, but look at that monitor on the Pro software page, it doesn't look like any of the current Apple cinema displays to me.

Edit: Now that I am looking at it more closely it is a cimema display. I need some cofee...

ipiloot
Nov 18, 2003, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by abdul
im getting confused. is shalke the same as renderman? it just seems they are both used on the same films e.g lotr and ice age as well as many more.

now that renderman ois on the mac, why is apple making it so hard for pixar to compete?


shake and renderman are two TOTALLY different animals for absolutely different things. One is for movie editing and another for 3D rendering.

Stof
Nov 18, 2003, 09:24 AM
Does anyone else think the LCD screen on the Pro Tools page looks 'different'?

http://a368.g.akamai.net/7/368/51/406731fbd36402/www.apple.com/software/pro/images/optimized_g5_panther1118200.gif

...Maybe I'm just too eager for new displays :(

P-Worm
Nov 18, 2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by ipiloot
shake and renderman are two TOTALLY different animals for absolutely different things. One is for movie editing and another for 3D rendering.

Not editing my friend, Shake is a compositing application. It works like this:

In a program like Maya, a person would create a 3D character and animate it.

Then Renderman is used to change the chunky low texture character into a smooth good looking character.

Then it is passed to Shake to composite (or overlay) the character into a scene.

So Gollum was modelled in Mirai and animated in Maya. Then it was passed to Renderman to look more like a person than a 3d character then finally to Shake to put it in the scene.

Make sense?

P-Worm

Trowaman
Nov 18, 2003, 10:05 AM
Here I am in college majoring in RTVF, using FCP begging for 4.0 for X-mas and now they put the next part of 4 out of my reach. I have a 1.0 GHZ iMac, which I know is not the ideal Pro computer, but they put my fav. tool just out of use for me. I'm sad now.:( I want a G5. Maybe in 3-4 years when there's 4.0 GHZ light based G5s or something.

nagromme
Nov 18, 2003, 10:17 AM
I don't think this update makes G4 users miss out on any new features. Only G5 optimization. Go ahead and get FCP4... it's great and comes with Soundtrack, possibly my favorite Mac app!

MhzDoesMatter
Nov 18, 2003, 10:19 AM
G5 Optimizations don't mean it doesn't run on a G4. It just means it runs that much better on the G5.

-Hertz

LethalWolfe
Nov 18, 2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by pixote
finally....I'm thinking of starting my own edit suite this summer and with this news and the prospect that the G5's will be at 3ghz by the fall I'm most likely going to go with Final Cut. With the money I save not buying an Avid Adrenaline I should be able to get some X Serve Raid and maybe Shake. Apple has the chance here to really make a move on the Pro side (not just with people cutting offline with DV). This also gives me hope that I could buy a used G5 next year and add a second suite. Good move apple.


FCP is used for a lot more than offline DV cuts and has been a serious Avid threat sense FCP 3 came out. FCP itself is completely resolution indenpendent so it can handle anything you throw at it (assuming of course you have hardware that can handle it). Off the top of my head, the TV show Scrubs, and the movies Intolerable Cruelty (Clooney & Zeta-Jones) and Cold Mountain (due out in Dec) were/are being cut w/FCP.


Lethal

chicagoboy
Nov 18, 2003, 10:45 AM
Unreal. I buy a 1.8 G5 in September for $2399 just as theycome out and now $100 more buys me a dual G5. I feel stupid and on top of that I was supporting Apple with their new product and not even 3 months later they offer a dramatic upgrade!

Trowaman
Nov 18, 2003, 10:46 AM
oh well in that case . . . w00t!

Still a G5 . . .mmm . . .

anyone know if Lord of the Rings was done on FCP, I know they used Shake, but that's all I know (that Apple near the end of the credits is nice)

Just curious, I got the Extended Edition last night.

chicagoboy
Nov 18, 2003, 10:58 AM
Does anyone know if single 1.8 Ghz G5 machines are capable of being upgraded to a dual? Is there room inside or is it set up that way so that eventually if they ofer it you could buy a second G5 chip and pop it in there?


Just got off the phone with Apple. Nope. If you bought a single 1.8 G5 it can't take another chip. Thanks Apple for luring in the first buyers.

mrsebastian
Nov 18, 2003, 11:06 AM
i feel the need, the need for speed!

CTYankee
Nov 18, 2003, 11:31 AM
Off the top of my head, the TV show Scrubs, and the movies Intolerable Cruelty (Clooney & Zeta-Jones) and Cold Mountain (due out in Dec) were/are being cut w/FCP.


24 as well...notice the G5 in his office. They use 17" powebooks, then render on an X-Serve.

nuckinfutz
Nov 18, 2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by chicagoboy
Does anyone know if single 1.8 Ghz G5 machines are capable of being upgraded to a dual? Is there room inside or is it set up that way so that eventually if they ofer it you could buy a second G5 chip and pop it in there?


Just got off the phone with Apple. Nope. If you bought a single 1.8 G5 it can't take another chip. Thanks Apple for luring in the first buyers.


That truly sucks CB. I'm sorry to hear that. I don't blame you for venting but enjoy your Powermac you got a good machine and it'll be just as fast as the Duallie in non MP aware apps.

ogminlo
Nov 18, 2003, 11:59 AM
Why anyone would buy a single processor Power Mac is beyond me... Apple was selling way more DP 2.0s, hence the hurried updates.

But your single chip 1.8s are still useful! Just not hyper-awesome-kickass fast like a DP machine!

udannlin
Nov 18, 2003, 12:37 PM
im gonna wait until the g5 moves to the powerbook..... maybe another year.

LethalWolfe
Nov 18, 2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by chicagoboy
Unreal. I buy a 1.8 G5 in September for $2399 just as theycome out and now $100 more buys me a dual G5. I feel stupid and on top of that I was supporting Apple with their new product and not even 3 months later they offer a dramatic upgrade!

Actually the G5's went on sale in June. So this update keeps in line w/their usual 6 month product cycle.

The next big thing is always around the corner so don't sweat it.


Lethal

winmacguy
Nov 18, 2003, 01:12 PM
Weta Digital in Wellington NZ( Also known as Middle Earth to LOTR fans ) have a IBM PC based renderwall for all their special effects and use Maya but as far as I know they dont use FCP as they dont use Apple.

suzerain
Nov 18, 2003, 01:35 PM
am i the only one here that thinks removing the single 1.8 from the lineup is stupid?

does anyone remember power computing, the company that apple bought and squashed when jobs killed the clones?

well, in 1997 power computing had a better build-to-order system than apple does now. looking at their insistence on a 3 tiered product line makes me yearn for power computing's BTO setup, where everything in the machine was customizable.

why *can't* i buy a single 1.8? apple obviously has the parts. why can't they make the processor BTO just like everything else?

i think their supply chain is too inefficient; i'd love to see apple have a more flexible BTO system, so that they would effectively have more models in the lineup.

that said, the dual 1.8 is the machine they should have released at the start! i always thought the two singles in the lineup were too expensive, given the price of the dual. i know, i know...that was intentional so that everyone would spring for the dual 2.0s...

Rower_CPU
Nov 18, 2003, 01:39 PM
I'll be interested in hearing from people who had issues on G5s/Panther. Hopefully this resolves everything.

coumerelli
Nov 18, 2003, 01:48 PM
Ok, so, on the topic of installing these updates, did anyone have to hard-reboot after the software update rebooted? I let it sit for a good 10-15 min on the 'darker' blue screen before I hit the powerbutton. I know about patience, but it was seemingly doing nothing. [hides for fear of 'idiot' remarks.]

It seems fine now though...FCP says 4.1 so I'm happy. :D

[edit: running 10.3.0]

actionslacks
Nov 18, 2003, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Foxer
Guess it is time to drop the dime and upgrade from FCP 3.

Only if they have finally fixed all of the other bugs in FCP4....

uae
Nov 18, 2003, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Trowaman
anyone know if Lord of the Rings was done on FCP, I know they used Shake, but that's all I know (that Apple near the end of the credits is nice)

Nope. It was definitely cut on an Avid Film/Media Composer.

You can see yourself on the original LOTR Two Towers DVD in the Return of the King preview where you get to see the editing bay.

The editing system that they are using is a Media Composer running on a good ol' 9600.

Film Composer is still the best tool there is to cut a feature on - 100% reliable.

actionslacks
Nov 18, 2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
FCP is used for a lot more than offline DV cuts and has been a serious Avid threat sense FCP 3 came out. FCP itself is completely resolution indenpendent so it can handle anything you throw at it (assuming of course you have hardware that can handle it). Off the top of my head, the TV show Scrubs, and the movies Intolerable Cruelty (Clooney & Zeta-Jones) and Cold Mountain (due out in Dec) were/are being cut w/FCP.


Lethal

It is not an avid threat in the online world for anything other than music videos, commercials, promos , etc. It cannot handle anything you throw at it! Trust me.

The Scrubs example is a total joke. They CUT on Avid and the only end up exporting a final show out of FCP. They have had so many problems with their workflow that Apple should be paying them for using it. The assistant editor is the one who wanted to do it in FCP because he is a total Mac fanatic.

Films are a different story. When all you have to do at the end of the day is generate a cut list to go back to your negative, it doesn't matter what you cut on. As long as your offline media keeps up and looks good enough, you do not necesarily need serious computing power. The editing system is ultimatley used to generate a very important text file.

There are a lot of stories about FCP and big projects (like the two movies you mentioned) and they are usually caused by editors or assistants that are total Mac fanatics and want to believe that FCP is as good as Avid. No editor in town would RELY on FCP to EDIT a television show. It just isn't there yet. Maybe in a few years.

actionslacks
Nov 18, 2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by uae
Nope. It was definitely cut on an Avid Film/Media Composer.

You can see yourself on the original LOTR Two Towers DVD in the Return of the King preview where you get to see the editing bay.

The editing system that they are using is a Media Composer running on a good ol' 9600.

Film Composer is still the best tool there is to cut a feature on - 100% reliable.

Exactly. We use two 9600s running OS 8.6 on our Media Composers for the primetime series that I am on right now. They are rock solid.

uae
Nov 18, 2003, 02:19 PM
Editing on a MC 7.1 on an 9600 with OS 8.6 as I type this.

I would love to upgrade to Adrenaline for the RT FX...but this thing is rock solid.

pixote
Nov 18, 2003, 02:36 PM
There are a lot of stories about FCP and big projects (like the two movies you mentioned) and they are usually caused by editors or assistants that are total Mac fanatics and want to believe that FCP is as good as Avid. No editor in town would RELY on FCP to EDIT a television show. It just isn't there yet. Maybe in a few years.

I agree, they're all just Apple PR moves, or total mac geeks who would edit on and imac if they had to, and tell you how great it was. I think until now video dedicated hardware was king, like with the Avid, real professionals are willing to pay for real power. Most of the 3rd party hardware makers for FCP don't have the money in R/D that Avid has (they spend 300million on the latest product line) but it looks like Avid is moving more towards a software and host processor based system so it will give FCP a chance to catch up. If you look at that Walter Murch example he used and IgnitorX card, a card you have to render DISSOLVES on. That seems insane to me. Something about how Aurora couldn't get access to Apples RT coding so they prioritized what they would make real time. The only hardware I know of that does multiple real time layers is the Pinnacle Cinewave, but that's only for playback. You should render before you print to tape. Once again that doesn't make for a professional system. If you want to use FCP for any resolution, offline. That's a different story, that's when you can work between several different computers and not have to worry about different board sets, you could even edit on your powerbook with the exact same software. Not xpress pro or express or mojo or whatever they call it.

LethalWolfe
Nov 18, 2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by actionslacks
It is not an avid threat in the online world for anything other than music videos, commercials, promos , etc. It cannot handle anything you throw at it! Trust me.

The Scrubs example is a total joke. They CUT on Avid and the only end up exporting a final show out of FCP. They have had so many problems with their workflow that Apple should be paying them for using it. The assistant editor is the one who wanted to do it in FCP because he is a total Mac fanatic.

Films are a different story. When all you have to do at the end of the day is generate a cut list to go back to your negative, it doesn't matter what you cut on. As long as your offline media keeps up and looks good enough, you do not necesarily need serious computing power. The editing system is ultimatley used to generate a very important text file.

There are a lot of stories about FCP and big projects (like the two movies you mentioned) and they are usually caused by editors or assistants that are total Mac fanatics and want to believe that FCP is as good as Avid. No editor in town would RELY on FCP to EDIT a television show. It just isn't there yet. Maybe in a few years.


Nothing like the unbaised opinion of a long time Avid user. :D

My "handle anything you can throw at it" comment was directed towards formats, not projects. I don't think FCP is as good as a Media/Film Composer, but FCP can give it a run for it's money and once you compare prices you really start wondering if you are really going to need the relatively few things you get w/an M/F Composer that you don't get w/FCP. Now does it compete w/a Symphony or a DS? No, but it's not supposed to. I guess I'm just confused as to why you seem to down play FCP so much. Is it a backlash against all the attention FCP has been getting? Do you see it as a lesser product just because of its price? Do you feel a need to justify the $75,000 machine you are sitting at right now? You say it doesn't matter what you cut a film on because in the end you are only exporting a cut list, so what do you think about a Film Composer? I don't know about you but I certainly don't want to cut a feature on Premiere 6.5. :eek: You also seem to look down on FCP as an "off line only" tool, but many of the machines FCP has been replacing are Media Composers that off-lined projects to be finished/on-lined on a Symphony, Smoke/Flame, etc.,.

While not as mature or feature rich as an M/F Composer (not yet at least) you can't deny the impact that FCP has had on the post side of the industry.

Also, I don't think Walter Murch or the Coen Brothers qualify as "total Mac fanatics." :p

Well, back to work. I hear a Media Composer calling my name. Oddly enough it is a 9600 too. A bit long in the tooth, a bit slow but these mofo's just keep chuggin' along.


Lethal

ConcertMan
Nov 18, 2003, 03:26 PM
and it starts again.....the old Avid vs. FCP flame wars.

Avid freaks are just as bad as Mac freaks when it comes to stuff like this. I've been using both for a very long time and honestly have had more problems with Avid than FCP. But would I take a free Media composer Adrenaline over a free FCP....any day. If I'm putting up my own money.....FCP all the way. for about 75% of all the editors out there FCP is the way to go. for the 2% that are actually cutting film.....get an avid.

No one is ever going to convince the other side that their side is better. you might as well argue Mac vs. PC.

Why don't we just stop the arguement and get to work.

peace
j

LethalWolfe
Nov 18, 2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by uae
Editing on a MC 7.1 on an 9600 with OS 8.6 as I type this.

I would love to upgrade to Adrenaline for the RT FX...but this thing is rock solid.


After Avid certifies and ships Adrenaline based G5's I'll report back w/first impressions. We are budgeted to get 2 as soon as possible and hopefully a 3rd next year.


Lethal

joelc
Nov 18, 2003, 03:29 PM
Anyone want to clue in this layman on why you would do anything on a 9600 with 8.6 anymore? Not that the 9600 wasn't cool, it's just a little dated. It can't be for the pci slots, can it? What else is there that you HAVE to do on such a machine? Someone made an iMac joke -- a lot of iMacs have more juice than any 604 ever will!

uae
Nov 18, 2003, 03:40 PM
It's because running Avid Media Composer on a 9600 is ROCK SOLID.

It is a hardware based NLE. You get 2 streams of video and one title in real time...all the time.

There is no such thing as dropped frames. No such thing as timecode drift, or a non-frame accurate capture.

This thing is frame accurate 100% of the time.

The thing never crashes and I can rely on it 100%. That is why tons of post houses still use them.

All of the video work is done on the dedicated Avid hardware, so it really doesn't matter that it is running on a 9600.

actionslacks
Nov 18, 2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by joelc
Anyone want to clue in this layman on why you would do anything on a 9600 with 8.6 anymore? Not that the 9600 wasn't cool, it's just a little dated. It can't be for the pci slots, can it? What else is there that you HAVE to do on such a machine? Someone made an iMac joke -- a lot of iMacs have more juice than any 604 ever will!

1. You don't know anything about production. Production is about maximizing productivity and resources to get the best qaulity/value ratio from your budget.

2. You don't HAVE to do anything on a 9600. The point is that Avids built using those computers are STILL great offline systems.

3. Anyone here that is on a 9600 Media Composer would rather be on a G4 Meridian system or adrenaline any day, but most editors do not make purchasing/rental decisions.

4. For $500-$700/week rental (8-12k to buy) you can get an ABVB Avid system. A Meridian on a G4 goes for 2-3 times as much depending on the length of the project.

5. An Avid is configured to work as an editing system only. All of the hardware and software are optimized to work together. Not like FCP where you have to combine multiple 3rd party products together that each have their own strenghs and weaknesses.

6. When you need tech support on an Avid you call one number. Any FCP "system" has many different companies involved depending on how the user has configured it.

LethalWolfe
Nov 18, 2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by joelc
Anyone want to clue in this layman on why you would do anything on a 9600 with 8.6 anymore? Not that the 9600 wasn't cool, it's just a little dated. It can't be for the pci slots, can it? What else is there that you HAVE to do on such a machine? Someone made an iMac joke -- a lot of iMacs have more juice than any 604 ever will!


If it ain't broke don't fix it. The stability of these machines was proved to me during college. We had 5 or 6 of them at my University and they maybe crashed once a month. Maybe. And when you have about 1,000 production students using and abusing these machines (many times for over 24hrs straight) and the worst thing you have to worry about is a kernal panic possibly once a month. That's a solid ***** machine. A bit slow though (boot up was usually the first coffee break of the day), but the things just wouldn't quit.

You'd be surprised how many of them are still being used. Maybe Avid and Apple made them too good. ;)


Lethal

joelc
Nov 18, 2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by actionslacks
1. You don't know anything about production. Production is about maximizing productivity and resources to get the best qaulity/value ratio from your budget.

6. When you need tech support on an Avid you call one number. Any FCP "system" has many different companies involved depending on how the user has configured it.

I never said I did. In fact, I specifically said I didn't. It was a simple question that deserved a civil answer. Looking into the matter on google a little, it looks to me like Avid sells complete computers with their software, and the 9600 was apparantly one of them.

I also didn't ask for any more info on why FCP is bad. I take the side of whoever said that this flame war is ridiculous. A discussion is fine, but you seem to have a problem keeping it rational and objective.

joelc
Nov 18, 2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
If it ain't broke don't fix it. The stability of these machines was proved to me during college. We had 5 or 6 of them at my University and they maybe crashed once a month. Maybe. And when you have about 1,000 production students using and abusing these machines (many times for over 24hrs straight) and the worst thing you have to worry about is a kernal panic possibly once a month. That's a solid ***** machine. A bit slow though (boot up was usually the first coffee break of the day), but the things just wouldn't quit.

You'd be surprised how many of them are still being used. Maybe Avid and Apple made them too good. ;)


Lethal

This is what I was hoping for -- a simple, pleasant answer

actionslacks
Nov 18, 2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Nothing like the unbaised opinion of a long time Avid user. :D

My "handle anything you can throw at it" comment was directed towards formats, not projects. I don't think FCP is as good as a Media/Film Composer, but FCP can give it a run for it's money and once you compare prices you really start wondering if you are really going to need the relatively few things you get w/an M/F Composer that you don't get w/FCP. Now does it compete w/a Symphony or a DS? No, but it's not supposed to. I guess I'm just confused as to why you seem to down play FCP so much. Is it a backlash against all the attention FCP has been getting? Do you see it as a lesser product just because of its price? Do you feel a need to justify the $75,000 machine you are sitting at right now? You say it doesn't matter what you cut a film on because in the end you are only exporting a cut list, so what do you think about a Film Composer? I don't know about you but I certainly don't want to cut a feature on Premiere 6.5. :eek: You also seem to look down on FCP as an "off line only" tool, but many of the machines FCP has been replacing are Media Composers that off-lined projects to be finished/on-lined on a Symphony, Smoke/Flame, etc.,.

While not as mature or feature rich as an M/F Composer (not yet at least) you can't deny the impact that FCP has had on the post side of the industry.

Also, I don't think Walter Murch or the Coen Brothers qualify as "total Mac fanatics." :p

Well, back to work. I hear a Media Composer calling my name. Oddly enough it is a 9600 too. A bit long in the tooth, a bit slow but these mofo's just keep chuggin' along.


Lethal

I have nothing against FCP. I use it a lot. I have it on every Mac I own. It is a nice piece of software.

It isn't AVID v. FCP in my opinion until some moron who has never edited anything beyond home movies tries to argue that an Avid isn't worth the money.

FCP is software! Until Apple makes a Mac with SDI I/O and AES built in (or an Apple branded I/O) you really can't compare the two.

The point is this - an editing system must be reliable, frame accurate, cost effcient, and able to take a beating. Avids are built (on Macs and PCs) to stand up to these standards.

THAT is why an 8-10 year old ABVB running 8.6 on a 9600 is still running 24/7 with 99% uptime. And nothing is more valuable than that when it comes to production.




Also, the Cohen Brothers usually cut on film rather than non-linear. If you want to know more about the specific problems Scrubs have had with FCP and Digital Film Tree, I can go on at length. As for Walter Murch, God bless him for embracing change.

actionslacks
Nov 18, 2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by joelc
I never said I did. In fact, I specifically said I didn't. It was a simple question that deserved a civil answer. Looking into the matter on google a little, it looks to me like Avid sells complete computers with their software, and the 9600 was apparantly one of them.

I also didn't ask for any more info on why FCP is bad. I take the side of whoever said that this flame war is ridiculous. A discussion is fine, but you seem to have a problem keeping it rational and objective.



Originally posted by joelc
Anyone want to clue in this layman on why you would do anything on a 9600 with 8.6 anymore? Not that the 9600 wasn't cool, it's just a little dated. It can't be for the pci slots, can it? What else is there that you HAVE to do on such a machine? Someone made an iMac joke -- a lot of iMacs have more juice than any 604 ever will!

I may have misinterpretted the tone of your post, and my response was influenced by several other posts of varying degrees of ignorance. I do apologize for the tone of my argument, but it was aimed at more than just you.

ITR 81
Nov 18, 2003, 04:31 PM
All indi film makers around here including universities have only FCP. Avid is ok but for low budgets it's just not worth it. 90% of all commerical companies here recently just switched to FCP because it's cheaper and they are getting the same results.

FCP 5 is coming out next yr.
All rendering done here is done on some nice SGI machines.

sethypoo
Nov 18, 2003, 05:21 PM
Fun!

If only I could rake together $2,999.00 plus a 20 inch monitor.

Hmm.....

Edited for spelling errors.

actionslacks
Nov 18, 2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by ITR 81
All indi film makers around here including universities have only FCP. Avid is ok but for low budgets it's just not worth it. 90% of all commerical companies here recently just switched to FCP because it's cheaper and they are getting the same results.

FCP 5 is coming out next yr.
All rendering done here is done on some nice SGI machines.

Where is "Here"?

There are a lot of universities that still use Avid media Composers, Avid DV, Media 100, along with FCP, Premiere, etc.

There are a considerable amount of commercial companies that do use FCP, but not 90%. And, most of those that do use it are using it for offline.

Without any hard facts, I would wager that 90% of commercials that are cut on FCP, are finished on smoke, flame, symphony, etc.

Considering that, it is still sometimes a good deal to buy a rock solid frame-accurate ABVB system for $6000 - $8000. It will cost you way more by the time you buy a PowerMac, Monitors, FCP, Speakers, Black Burst, mixer, video card, etc.

fatfish
Nov 18, 2003, 05:44 PM
9600's still going strong eh!

perhaps I shouldn't have given mine away, maybe I should get my IIcx up and running.

LethalWolfe
Nov 18, 2003, 05:53 PM
joelc,

Sorry you caught some of the flack that I'm sure was directed at me. :D


actionslacks,

Sorry if I came off strong. Lately I've just run into too many Avid users who've never/barely used FCP but automaticly dismiss it as "consumer grade" because of the $999 price tag. I guess I'm a bit trigger happy.

AFAIK Intolerable Cruelity was the first time they did not cut on film, and I would like to know more about to goings-on over at Digital Film Tree. If you don't want to go into detail about it in this thread feel free to PM or e-mail.


Lethal

h'biki
Nov 18, 2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Trowaman
oh well in that case . . . w00t!
anyone know if Lord of the Rings was done on FCP, I know they used Shake, but that's all I know (that Apple near the end of the credits is nice)


Last time I heard they were using about 10x 9600s running Avid MediaComposer! 9600s are kind of the bedrock of much of the film and video industry :)

However, I've just had a couple of friends finish up on ROTK (they're Shake compositors) so they should know for sure.

Regardless, they certainly *aren't* using Final Cut Pro.

h'biki
Nov 18, 2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by coumerelli
Ok, so, on the topic of installing these updates, did anyone have to hard-reboot after the software update rebooted? I let it sit for a good 10-15 min on the 'darker' blue screen before I hit the powerbutton. I know about patience, but it was seemingly doing nothing. [hides for fear of 'idiot' remarks.]

It seems fine now though...FCP says 4.1 so I'm happy. :D

[edit: running 10.3.0]

I'm running 10.3.1 which is what FCP4.1 is qualified for, and the same thing happened to me.

Edot
Nov 18, 2003, 06:41 PM
I haven't seen any hard data on the market share or use of Avid over FCP for editing. These posts seem very biased depending on what the person is using. If someone finds some data on the usage of the two I would be more inclined to listen to the arguments. I know for a fact that Star Wars Episode II was edited on FCP for the rough cut. It is on their website if you don't believe me. So you can't say that professionals don't use FCP or that it isn't an option.

I thought this was kinda interesting too:

http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/rick/askjc20020715.html

So when are they going to Update FCE for the G5?

tny
Nov 18, 2003, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by ogminlo
Why anyone would buy a single processor Power Mac is beyond me... Apple was selling way more DP 2.0s, hence the hurried updates.

But your single chip 1.8s are still useful! Just not hyper-awesome-kickass fast like a DP machine!
Because not everyone could budget $3K for the machine, plus the price of all the other stuff. If I'd had a chance to buy a 1.8 DP for $2500 instead of the 1.8 SP for $2400, I'd have taken it. But what the hell, I got 3 months of having the second fastest desktop computer .... and it's still a very, very nice machine; I haven't found a limit to what I can do (yet).

tny
Nov 18, 2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by suzerain
am i the only one here that thinks removing the single 1.8 from the lineup is stupid?

why *can't* i buy a single 1.8? apple obviously has the parts. why can't they make the processor BTO just like everything else?

One of Jobs' big insights was that Apple needed to move away from having a multitude of products, and overlapping product lines. Thus the simplification: never more than 3 or 4 products per line, and 4-5 lines of systems (PowerMac, iMac, eMac, PowerBook, iBook). It simplifies a lot about delivery, manufacturing, support, etc.

LethalWolfe
Nov 18, 2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Edot
I haven't seen any hard data on the market share or use of Avid over FCP for editing. These posts seem very biased depending on what the person is using. If someone finds some data on the usage of the two I would be more inclined to listen to the arguments. I know for a fact that Star Wars Episode II was edited on FCP for the rough cut. It is on their website if you don't believe me. So you can't say that professionals don't use FCP or that it isn't an option.

I thought this was kinda interesting too:

http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/rick/askjc20020715.html

So when are they going to Update FCE for the G5?

The link you posted doesn't mention anything about FCP. Or if it did I'm blind 'cause I didn't see it.

IIRC, FCP wasn't used for a rough cut of the film. Episode II used very basic animation instead of traditional story boards and FCP was used to to edit those animation sequences.


Lethal

legion
Nov 18, 2003, 08:52 PM
I'm all for FCP growing to be a better product. Avid has been relatively unchallenged in NLEs for film and competition is good for the consumer.

However, from statements from the Coen Brothers about the recent editing process for Intolerable shows their lack of understanding about NLEs in general and that the whole move to Apple for that project was pretty much an advertising move from Apple (the hardware was given to them and they were taught on it by Apple reps-- also being fed PR releases during the process to spout afterwards.) Their comments show their general lack of understanding of what is available in the NLE world and they probably would have been just as happy doing Intolerable on a steenbeck. But who wants to turndown free hardware and software! Apple's bonus is they get two darlings of the film world in their pocket for life.

This also applies to Walter for Cold Mountain (though he seems more knowledgable.) I think it's the right thing to do for FCP to get some credibility in the film industry (so for that I don't fault Apple's tactics-- I'd do the same thing in their place.) It's just that the intelligent editor should realize it is just advertising and take all of this with huge heaping spoonfuls of salt. In the end, this is another case of Apple using software as a trojan horse to sell more hardware. Avid's business model is different (in some ways more Apple than Apple since they are looking at vertically integrated products) and depend on hardware sales as much as software.

For now, both companies, Avid and Apple, need to start working on the stability of the newer systems they've put out since both lack the stability editors appreciate most; I have yet to hear or see a single demanding editor have a consistently flawless workflow on either the Avid DNA line or FCP4. That's more important to me than adding new features at this point (and upgrading software versions, which seems to only bring profit to the software developer.) I've been leaning towards Discreet Smoke since it seems most impressive and rock solid; everything they claim seems to be true of the system in realworld situations-- if only I had a $120K to spend :rolleyes:

daveL
Nov 18, 2003, 08:59 PM
[i]So when are they going to Update FCE for the G5? [/B]
Well... today, I guess :)

actionslacks
Nov 18, 2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by legion
I'm all for FCP growing to be a better product. Avid has been relatively unchallenged in NLEs for film and competition is good for the consumer.

However, from statements from the Coen Brothers about the recent editing process for Intolerable shows their lack of understanding about NLEs in general and that the whole move to Apple for that project was pretty much an advertising move from Apple (the hardware was given to them and they were taught on it by Apple reps-- also being fed PR releases during the process to spout afterwards.) Their comments show their general lack of understanding of what is available in the NLE world and they probably would have been just as happy doing Intolerable on a steenbeck. But who wants to turndown free hardware and software! Apple's bonus is they get two darlings of the film world in their pocket for life.

This also applies to Walter for Cold Mountain (though he seems more knowledgable.) I think it's the right thing to do for FCP to get some credibility in the film industry (so for that I don't fault Apple's tactics-- I'd do the same thing in their place.) It's just that the intelligent editor should realize it is just advertising and take all of this with huge heaping spoonfuls of salt. In the end, this is another case of Apple using software as a trojan horse to sell more hardware. Avid's business model is different (in some ways more Apple than Apple since they are looking at vertically integrated products) and depend on hardware sales as much as software.

For now, both companies, Avid and Apple, need to start working on the stability of the newer systems they've put out since both lack the stability editors appreciate most; I have yet to hear or see a single demanding editor have a consistently flawless workflow on either the Avid DNA line or FCP4. That's more important to me than adding new features at this point (and upgrading software versions, which seems to only bring profit to the software developer.) I've been leaning towards Discreet Smoke since it seems most impressive and rock solid; everything they claim seems to be true of the system in realworld situations-- if only I had a $120K to spend :rolleyes:

Well said. I too found it interesting that Apple would approach editors that always cut on film to write a story about instead of editors that always cut on Avid.

I agree with your opinion of smoke. Discreet rules. I really hope they do not abandon the Mac. I love running combustion on my systems at home.

All of Avids new products for HD have had more bugs to work out than previous Media composer generations. DS is not as solid as it should be, Nitris will have a growth period, and I would not trady a meridian 9000 for an adrenaline any day.

The NLE revolution has not been at the professional level, but at the prosumer/indie level where gigantic leaps have been made over the past couple years.

Edot
Nov 18, 2003, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
The link you posted doesn't mention anything about FCP. Or if it did I'm blind 'cause I didn't see it.

IIRC, FCP wasn't used for a rough cut of the film. Episode II used very basic animation instead of traditional story boards and FCP was used to to edit those animation sequences.


Lethal

You must be blind.:confused:

Originally posted by daveLWell... today, I guess:)

Final Cut Express? Where?:confused:

Gregory
Nov 18, 2003, 11:55 PM
This AVID vs. FCP must stop at Once!

I'm a AVID editor, Avid is nice, but not that nice. I would rather finish on Smoke any day, but for FCP4. It has come a long way in a short time. Both systems have problems, even the rock solid 9600's, are limited by the hardware that runs them, thats why avid has changed to DNA. But DNA Sucks, I would rather use the New Media100's 844, it blows DNA away, by far. ..

Gregory
Nov 18, 2003, 11:57 PM
so let the real editor talk about, real work and getting work done. ..

cynikal
Nov 19, 2003, 12:01 AM
anyone have a link to the files directly?

SPG
Nov 19, 2003, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I'll be interested in hearing from people who had issues on G5s/Panther. Hopefully this resolves everything.
I hope it does too, I'd really like to get firewire preview out to my deck/monitor! I'll upgrade the DP2.0 tomorrow to FCP4.1 and let you know if it fixes the bug...otherwise I'll be on some other forums and the phone trying to get this **** to work already.

BTW I do like FCP, I've been cutting everything from TV segments to 90 min programs to 12 layer DVD motion menus on it. I haven't used Avid in years, but only cause I can't afford one right now. My Media100 has a "kick me" sign on it if that tells you anything.

LethalWolfe
Nov 19, 2003, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Edot
You must be blind.:confused:



Well can you help a blind guy out then? I click on yer link and I'm taken to a page where Rick McCallum is answering a Q from a high school kid who wants to be a producer. One thing he says is, "...go buy an iMac and Final Cut Pro.." but thats all I see. :(


Lethal

geerlingguy
Nov 19, 2003, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by tny
One of Jobs' big insights was that Apple needed to move away from having a multitude of products, and overlapping product lines. Thus the simplification: never more than 3 or 4 products per line, and 4-5 lines of systems (PowerMac, iMac, eMac, PowerBook, iBook). It simplifies a lot about delivery, manufacturing, support, etc.

If you've ever visited HP's or Dell's or eMachines' or any other PC manufacturer's support website, you would understand this need for simplification. Instead of, on Apple's site, clicking on "iBook" or "Power Mac G4", you could search for your HP 24984 XLsdfif Rev. 2.238 (exaggerated, but gets my point across). Kudos to Apple for simplification of the product line.

Kai
Nov 21, 2003, 09:58 AM
Weta Digital in Wellington NZ( Also known as Middle Earth to LOTR fans ) have a IBM PC based renderwall for all their special effects and use Maya but as far as I know they dont use FCP as they dont use Apple.

Oh, really (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-504153.html?legacy=zdnn&chkpt=zdnn_nbs_hl)? Don't they (http://www.apple.com/shake/stories/lotr/) use Macs?

am i the only one here that thinks removing the single 1.8 from the lineup is stupid?

Yes. If Dual is $100 more, you definately are! ;-)

legion
Nov 21, 2003, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by Kai
Oh, really (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-504153.html?legacy=zdnn&chkpt=zdnn_nbs_hl)? Don't they (http://www.apple.com/shake/stories/lotr/) use Macs?



Not implicitly disagreeing with you (as I wasn't the one that made the original claim), but the Macs are used for previewing digital effects. Not final rendering. It's also interesting that they were using it because they had custom software built for OS9. These things may have changed two years later (article's from 2001 and the work done on the next 2 LOTRs was done on different hardware too)

The Shake boxes are Linux (if you note the clever scripting in the PR release on Shake and LOTR, they attempt to sidestep the issue of which type of machine they run Shake on.. only saying it's helpful that it is a multiplatform application.) However, if you notice the licenses they (Weta) bought, it directly links to the fact that it is running on Linux and not Macs. (Licenses for Macs would have been handled differently... plus, would you think that Apple would avoid such a obvious marketing treasure if Weta was using Macs for Shake?)

Apple hardware products are used a lot for previewing and roughcutting, however they are used far less for finals in cutting/editing or rendering. For instance, CineWave +FCP was used for in-field rough cutting and previewing for the Matrix 2 and 3, however all the final cuts and finishing was done on Avids.

LethalWolfe
Nov 23, 2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by legion
Apple hardware products are used a lot for previewing and roughcutting, however they are used far less for finals in cutting/editing or rendering. For instance, CineWave +FCP was used for in-field rough cutting and previewing for the Matrix 2 and 3, however all the final cuts and finishing was done on Avids.

So, were those PC or Mac based Avids? ;)


Lethal

Trowaman
Nov 23, 2003, 09:00 PM
Well, it seems this thread on LOTR I started is coming to an end but I do want to post a few things I have learned from getting TTT Extended edition.

There are many documenteraries on the DVD and upong them is one on editing and they are using Avids to edit but the surprising part was LOTR use of iPods. There's about 2 minutes of docs where they talk about how they bought a bunch of iPods and used them as portable hard drives, using them to transfer finished scenes from the movies from builing to building (one guy with an iPod and finished scene was almost mugged, quite funny to hear about). Also, almost anytime you see Peter Jackson there is a Powerbook or iBook with him.

Thanks to everyone who responded to my LOTR editing question.

Ysean
Nov 27, 2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by suzerain
well, in 1997 power computing had a better build-to-order system than apple does now. looking at their insistence on a 3 tiered product line makes me yearn for power computing's BTO setup, where everything in the machine was customizable.

why *can't* i buy a single 1.8? apple obviously has the parts. why can't they make the processor BTO just like everything else?

I think apple still likes to make things "easier" for the average person. Mom & Dad don't know anything about processors. They just want a computer that will work & work well.