Final Cut Pro 4 - Monday

[MacRumors]

We've received further confirmation that Apple will be releasing Final Cut Pro 4 on Monday, April 7, 2003 -- the first day of the National Association of Broadcasters conference.

Early features of Final Cut Pro 4 were leaked by ThinkSecret (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/finalcutpro4.html) in December. The list includes:

- "24fps" editing
- Support for Firewire 800
- DV50

A Panasonic and Apple Press Release (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/apr/07panasonic.html) from April 2002 hinted at future Final Cut Pro support for their DVCPRO50 tape deck and 24P camcorder.

Other updates expected (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/04/20030404131210.shtml) include Shake 3 and DVD Studio Pro 2.

[iJon]

sounds good, im sure the video editors will be happy about this. now adobe has to play catch up again, as if they werent already.

iJon

[Freg3000]

Cool!

Not that I have any use for it.....but it's still pretty cool.

[dotcomlarry]

Might we see some integration with DVD Studio Pro, much like iMovie and iDVD? I hope so.

[trebblekicked]

i don't shoot 24p, so i'm not sure what FCP4 will have that will make me upgrade, but i'll take a look at it. i think the upgrade to DVDSP2 is more important. a proper interace upgrade and a quicker render engine would help put that program over the top. i use DVDSP, but not as much as i should. here's hoping we see BIG improvements on DVDSP and some improvements in FCP4.

[RBMaraman]

Wow! Great news!

I'm very interested in trying out the 24 fps editing. Also glad to see FireWire 800 support.

I wonder what changes are in store for DVDSP...

[mymemory]

What is 24fps editing? I mean, you can output your movies at 24fps now, isn't? or si it something else?

[Macpoops]

One thing that i always had a problem with in DVDSP was how it handles motion menus. It seems that their could be a much easier way of doing it. Given i am not an expert on the program but it was rather confusing in getting it to work.

[nuckinfutz]

MyMemory-

Panasonic AGDVX1000 24P Camera (http://www.panasonic.com/PBDS/subcat/Products/cams_ccorders/f_ag-dvx100.html)

Soon you will see 24P camera from Sony, Canon and others. Currently the Panny is the first at this price level(sub $4k)

Recording in 24P is supposed to give a "Filmlike" look to your video which filmmakers crave. The panny has been getting rave reviews. You do have to have Native support though in your editor and that's what Apple looks to have done with FCP4.

[lolbro]

When I capture a video recorder on a MiniDV its 29.97 frames per second in Final Cut 3.

Why support 24 fps? What is the purpose of lowering the frame rate?

Like in video games, the higher the frame rate like (100 fps) in Quake III is better than playing Quake III at 34 fps.

[Pismo]

I just bought FCP 3 a few weeks ago for a video project that I'm doing with some friends this summer.

I've never bought an upgrade to FCP. I am a student so I bought the full version of FCP 3 with a student discount. If I bought the upgrade to FCP 4, will be be a full installer? WIll I have to have FCP already installed? It seems that a lot of companies just ask you to enter a serial number from an earlier version.

[GeneR]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
MyMemory-

Panasonic AGDVX1000 24P Camera (http://www.panasonic.com/PBDS/subcat/Products/cams_ccorders/f_ag-dvx100.html)

Soon you will see 24P camera from Sony, Canon and others. Currently the Panny is the first at this price level(sub $4k)

Recording in 24P is supposed to give a "Filmlike" look to your video which filmmakers crave. The panny has been getting rave reviews. You do have to have Native support though in your editor and that's what Apple looks to have done with FCP4.

I don't know anything about the Panavision, but I'd agree that it gave "Filmlike" look if I knew that Panavision could:

1.) Shoot with the same kind of lense distortions that you get from a 16mm or 35mm motion film. A 35mm, a 50mm, a 75mm, etc.

2.) I knew that there was some sort of filter (ND?) along with others that could be used to help achieve greater contrasts.

3.) To be able to shoot at variable frame rates, not just 24fps! How about 48fps, 64fps, 72fps, or 96fps?

RE: "FILMLIKE"
No offense to nuckinfutz, but I am a bit puzzled when I hear people use the term "Filmlike" look. Can video (even DV) ever look like film? I am glad they now have more 24p options, however, I just don't see how DV could ever match up with and be "filmlike" when compared to film.

Personally, I'd love to be able to brag that a DV film looks like film, but I really think this is not fair to neither DV nor film. DV and Film seem like such completely different mediums with different strengths.

DV:
PROS:
*A lot more affordable.
CONS:
*Only a few million possible colors.
*Smaller color range.
*Smaller contrast range.
*Needs different, more even lighting schemes to compensate.
* Smaller amount of image (unless using HDTV) information than film.

FILM:
PROS:
* Millions upon millions of colors due to the strengths of using a chemical-based medium.
* Much wider contrast possible.
* Truer blacks.
* Needs conventional lighting schemes to get some really great color and BW shots.
* Larger amount of image information per frame.
CONS:
* A lot more expensive.

I think if you look at STAR WARS: AOTC, it's pretty apparent that the colors and the overall look of the film looks more like a TV show or a videogame, than something shot on film.

I don't know if this interests anyone but the company formerly 4MC in Burbank, CA (I think it's Liberty Media?) has a Transforms department which screens their work if you ask for a screening (or at least they did about four years ago when I was around there).

They transfer Mini-DV to 16mm of 35mm film for a fairly reasonable price for an indie. If you watch them on the big screen it's pretty apparent that DV has its own strengths but will probably never really be "filmlike" in league with film for the forseeable future. It doesn't make it bad. It just makes it DV.

I'm hoping FCP 4 will be great for the Indie market, but unless they allow to edit HDTV files, I wonder if it will probably be more of a dream to think that consumer and pro-sumer cameras will ever be good enough to be considered "filmlike".

My $0.02. :D

[jelloshotsrule]

what does cinema tools do that would separate it from a 24fps capable fcp 4?

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by lolbro
When I capture a video recorder on a MiniDV its 29.97 frames per second in Final Cut 3.

Why support 24 fps? What is the purpose of lowering the frame rate?

Like in video games, the higher the frame rate like (100 fps) in Quake III is better than playing Quake III at 34 fps.

The difference is your 29.97 frames per second are interlaced(two halves of the video frame are processed and interlaced together before output)

24P cameras will record 24 Frames per second Progressive Full Frame. Just like Film in a Theater. Interlacing always requires faster speed to equal Progressive. Case in point. High Def TV. 720P(Progressive) would be equivalent and possibly superior to 1080i(Interlaced)

Like in video games, the higher the frame rate like (100 fps) in Quake III is better than playing Quake III at 34 fps.

Yes if you're looking to record fast moving objects. But Filmmakers have been recording on film and are used to the "look" which includes the grain and movement of film. Our eyes are used to this and that is why some purely Digital Movies can look a little odd IMO.

Check out some reviews of the Panny 24P camera. Most Videographer LOVE it. It's not perfect but the advangtages are not subtle.

[mymemory]

Originally posted by GeneR
I wonder if it will probably be more of a dream to think that consumer and pro-sumer cameras will ever be good enough to be considered "filmlike".

My $0.02. :D

Do not forget the "What if I could...". For me would be pretty cool to have some film texture.

Remember that you can sell that to a client for low budget tv comertials. If we where so picky with video effects Cine Look for After Effects wouldn't be around.

Now, Cine Look is such funny exagerated way to do that, I think the Quick Time filter is more humble for those things.

Now, I'm glad that in the near future I'm gonna get a video camera with all those functions, or I may get an old Sony DV pro camera for a very low ammount of money. I just want to get out of my country to start working around my dreams, pretty soon.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
what does cinema tools do that would separate it from a 24fps capable fcp 4?


Cinema tools will cease to exist.


Lethal

[shadowfax]

pardon me if i missed this.
why do we think apple is going to do this on monday? aren't they tuesday people about announcements, or is that just for hardware?

[LethalWolfe]

GeneR,

DV will not replace film (that's what HD is for ;)), but there are ways you can manipulate video in order for it to achieve asthetic values usually only found when shooting on film. Thus the "film-like" term as opposed to "film-replacement". ;)

Personnally I'm not big into spending lots of time making video look like film. Some people I know are damn near obsessed by it but I figure there are more important things to worry about when making a movie.

And the only thing I would change in your "pro/con" list is that shooting video requires less ligthing than film does.

As far as FCP 4 goes I'm hoping Apple comes threw. 24p and such is nice but there are a lot of mundane sounding things that won't make head lines but will mean a lot to editors.


Lethal

[pilotgi]

What's DV50?

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Cinema tools will cease to exist.


why would apple do that to themselves then? they lose 1000 bucks per customer that needs film editing capabilities....

are they just that nice? ha

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
As far as FCP 4 goes I'm hoping Apple comes threw. 24p and such is nice but there are a lot of mundane sounding things that won't make head lines but will mean a lot to editors.

just curious what those mundane things are in your mind? i don't get so deep into it that i could really pick it apart. but i'm interested in seeing what things stand out to you.

[Rower_CPU]

Performance improvements would be nice.

Everything should be RT, dammit. :D

[GregGomer]

I predict we'll see some cool new features. Among these I think it'll be an OS X only version of FCP. With this, it means it'll have to be a stand alone installer for the upgrade since some people won't have OS 9 versions on their computers. As well, as OS X only, I expect some really nice optimizations and speed improvements. As well, I think we'll see alot more realtime effects to compete with AVID DV EXPRESS.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see some of the top requested features by Final Cut Pro LA User groups users. Such as real time audio effects and mixing. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see more media management features, and mutlicamera editing support. I also think we'll see better MPEG4 support, and maybe even offline start to use the MPEG format. I also wouldn't be surprised if it also gains the ability to work with MPEG2 files.

Better titling will probably be a feature, maybe through an improved Boris app.

And, I think we'll see a lot more 3rd party Apps. In the past losts of LE or trial Apps were inlcuded. In FCP 3.0 not that many were since it was a OS X version, but very few if any of those 3rd party Apps were ready for OS X. So hopefully this time around we'll see some really nice 3rd party LE apps or trial ones thrown in. Like Cinema 4D, etc.

[Fredo Viola]

24 fps not only looks more filmic, but if you want to shoot a feature ON FILM and cut it at film fps, or if you want to transfer your video to film when you're finished for analog exhibition this works seamlessly. More frames per second does not create a more realistic reality, just one that flashes more info into your eyes, which is one of the reasons why a lot of folks (myself included) dislike the look of video. It's frenetic, and sometimes you don't want that. For gaming it makes sense to keep things frenetic, which is why one of the earlier posts thought less frames seems less cool. I think.

[Chisholm]

I think it would be nice to see it more in tune with multi users.:p

[iJon]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
pardon me if i missed this.
why do we think apple is going to do this on monday? aren't they tuesday people about announcements, or is that just for hardware?
well they have no control over this conference, and it starts monday. they will probably annouce it on monday, then let people play with it for the rest on the conference. they can control macworld(to an extent). get what im saying.

iJon

[daddy-mojo]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Cinema tools will cease to exist.


Lethal

As far as I know, Cinema Tools is used for matching back your edits & cuts on film so that you can edit your actual real film based movie in final cut then turn over your EDL (edit decision list) back to the film cutter and have everything come out correctly. More accurate because of the telecine process. I may have summarized that to much, Cinema Tools users out there...is this correct? I don't know if that means its going anywhere.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by iJon
well they have no control over this conference, and it starts monday. they will probably annouce it on monday, then let people play with it for the rest on the conference. they can control macworld(to an extent). get what im saying.

iJon

but apple often releases stuff without conferences on tuesdays, right? like the latest Xserves?

[beatle888]

Originally posted by Fredo Viola
More frames per second does not create a more realistic reality, just one that flashes more info into your eyes, which is one of the reasons why a lot of folks (myself included) dislike the look of video. It's frenetic, and sometimes you don't want that. For gaming it makes sense to keep things frenetic, which is why one of the earlier posts thought less frames seems less cool. I think.


strange you should say that. i was at an apple FCP demo and they showed us how to make the video camera footage appear like film. the point they made was if you pan with a video camera the motion seems steady. while with film theres a certain jittery quality to it. THATS what they wanted the video footage to be like. just go into a theater and watch the footage. when they pan its sorta jittery (frenetic).

supposedly the video footage is too smooth and makes it look like your watching some cheap home movie even though the video footage is less jumpy.

[h'biki]

24FPS has been around since the introduction of sound to cinema. They need a standard frame rate for sync and they chose 24FPS because it was the minimum needed to create 'latent imaging' - (latent imaging has been debunked as a theory of perception but you get me) - and a minimum is good cause you save on film stock.

24FPS has not only stayed over the last 70 years or so, but its become ingrained in our culture as a part of the movie-going experience.

Various high speed film systems have appeared over the years but none have been particularly successful.

Why? It is true that a higher frame rate appears more real.... (like in Q3 it helps you bag baddies better)... but appearing more real isn't necessarily conducive to storytelling.

So, moral of the story: 24FPS has been culturally coded to suggest the dreamlike nature of storytelling. For low budget miniDV producers it is an elusive holygrail which will allow them to help their audience suspend belief (cause, frankly, miniDV looks like crap - hey, i should know, i've shot enough of it!).

The 24FPS support of FCP isn't designed to replace Cinema Tools. It's to support (amongst other things) the PANASONIC DVX100s built in 3:2 pulldown - the DX100 shoots in 24FPS but spreads the image across 30 frames. FCP4 will be able to extract the 24 frames and edit in 24FPS... now lets hope DVDSP2 will support the '24P' tag of DVDs. [Hmm, I could be wrong that DVD supports 24FPS, but it certainly supports progressive scan]

Oh yeah, its Panasonic who manufacture the DVX100. Not Panavision. Panavision make and rent (but do not sell) 35mm cameras and lenses. Frankly, if given the choice of shooting on a Panavision Millenium XL and a DVX100 I'd go the Millenium. (The millenium was used on Matrix 2 & 3 - its the most advanced 35mm camera ever).

As for video being easier to light than film... its not. Video appears easier to light than film cause its rated at around 400ASA while the standard film stock is Kodak Vision 200T (rated at, surprisingly, 200ASA). So you need less light for video... unles, of course, you decide to shoot with 500T or 800T (which you could push process to 1600T).

However, what makes video hard to light -well- is its complete lack of dynamic range. You're looking at 2 stops above and 3 stops below. Get clipping and you're screwed. The dynamic range of HD is better (I think 7 or 9 stops?) but comes no where near film's 13 stops (on Vision2) and the fact that their highlights actually good -good-. Most video DPs light 'flat' (compress their dynamic range) to give themselves more options in post. If you think this is easy... hahah!

Video also has a compressed colour space. In digibeta and HDCam, its got HALF the colourspace of film. In miniDV it has a QUARTER of the colourspace of film.

On both counts this means you have to be extremely careful with lighting and colour with video (especially miniDV) - but the irony is those who shoot video tend to lake less care with these things than those who shoot film... Probably cause when you're shooting film all you are thinking about is how much it costs per second and you don't wanna ****** up.

MiniDV can look good. Just don't think its easy.

(Oh, and lets hope that DVDSP2 owes more to Spruce than DVDirector)

http://homepage.mac.com/breadboi/PhotoAlbum9.html

(Photos from a low-budget music video I produced... woo... steadicam & 16mm)

[beatle888]

i really dislike that jittery effect film has. it gives me a headache. but i do understand why film makers prefer it. try paning your head from left to right. notice that you dont focus on anything if you keep your eyes looking straight (if you can do it) as your head turns? well the video camera keeps all that motion in focus...making it look artificial. film simulates the way we see as our head is panning. but i still dont like it.

off topic. i wish hollywood could standardize their sound volumes. i hate having to turn up the volume cause you cant here what people are saying then you have to turn it down once the explosions start.

HOLLYWOOD understand that if your dialogue volumes are way lower than your special effects sound levels we the customer has to work the volume control constantly.

[LethalWolfe]

Re: Cinema Tools

Maybe I was being too drastic. It will probably stick around as seperate package for people shooting film for film distribution, but as far as the "24p for video" side of Cinema Tools that part, IMO, has to be native in FCP. Even though not very many people shoot in 24p it's become enough of a buzzword that a new NLE w/o 24p support is going to be lagging behind.

Re: "mundane things"

Stuff like better media management, better EDL support, and better OMF support. Stuff that helps FCP talk to other hi-end audio and video software better and general refinements that mature software should have.

Re: lighting

I never said lighting for video was easier. I said it takes less light to get the job done.

And before this video vs film pissing contest gets a full head of steam I'd just like to say it doesn't ********* matter what you shoot on if the story is good.

Anyway, by the time my current project wraps I'll hopefully have enough $$$ saved up to get FCP 4 and by that time all the "new software" bugs will hopefully we worked out. ;)

Lethal

[Sol]

I like the idea of 24 frame digital video and I am sure that it will soon become a standard for non-television work. At the very least I expect this format to become a part of the editing of films as it seems like an ideal format for off-line backup.

If FCP 4 comes out on Monday why would Apple hold a press conference on Sunday? Personally I believe Sunday should be a day of rest. The 24/7 life-style is not a healthy way to live and more people should feel entitled to times when they do absolutely nothing productive with no guilt. Steve Jobs, if you are reading this, take at least one day of the week off and try to relax while it lasts (trust me, the time will fly).

As for the film vs video debate, I must say that although digital video has become a standard today, it will not better film unless people who make videos build on digital's strengths. For one, digital video on the computer can be any frame-rate you wish to set for it. The problem is that the source footage is always in the frame-rates of PAL, NTSC or film. This is not good enough. I am sure that increasing frame-rates to 60 in every second will revolutionize cinema. In action movies for example fights and car chases will seem even more fluid.

Back to Final Cut Pro 4, I have my fingers crossed that this will be a major over-haul of my favorite video editing application. At the very least the speed of rendering effects will be improved. I also expect the audio part of FCP to be improved as the current audio editing leaves a bit to be desired.

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
pardon me if i missed this.
why do we think apple is going to do this on monday? aren't they tuesday people about announcements, or is that just for hardware?

NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) meet next week for the 2003 conference.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by bousozoku
NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) meet next week for the 2003 conference.
and apple is going to present FCP4 there, then? ok.

[h'biki]

Yes. I agree. FCP4 need native 24fps support. Producing EDLs for negcutters is a niche market product - and even with the additional cost of cinema tools, FCP is still a cheaper solution than Media100 or Avid for film conforming. :)

FCP4 needs to fix media manager *now*. I'd also like to see FCP4 be multi-user aware and handle capture scratch better. I personally prefer Media100s system of tying the 'preference' for the location of media files with the project itself. Its such a minor thing but its totally shat me since FCP1. As a freelance editor working on multiple projects simultaneously on multiple firewire drives, it makes my life insane.

I am hoping that FCP4 and Logic 6 play nice together. FCP3.0.4 fixed the OMF sync-drift problem and exports very nicely into ProTools. Problem is you need DigiTranslator which is an expensive piece of software for what it does.

I don't mind if FCP4's audio tools don't change drastically from FCP3 tho real time audio woud be nice (support AudioUnits I'm hoping)... because Audio and Video editing are two *very* different things and require different interfaces.

I still disagree that video needs less light to get the job done - unless you want to crank your gain to +36db. [Bet you don't like film cause there's no gain control! :)]

There are many wonderfully shot films which made extensive use of available light... to name but three: Lantana (2001) shot by Mandy Walker; the French Connection (1971) shot by Owen Roizman; Breathless (1960) shot by Raoul Coutard.

There are countless others.

Film stocks have improved in grain structure and speed over the last century. Modern high speed stocks, 16mm and 35mm, are very good. They require as little light as video (shot at 0db, I'll admit). Its just when shooting film, DoPs tend to be a lot more careful with their lighting and use more through choice not need... Using more light and stopping down actually gives you a higher-contrast image because it reduces the effect of radiosity - you also get less lens abberation. [shrug]

I think video is great. Its much easier to use than film but I prefer the look of film. Its just as hard to produce great work in both mediums. Though most of the DoPs I've talked too who've shot both HD and 35mm would much rather shoot 35mm until HD is 'ready' and mb not even then. Who wants to light from behind a waveform monitor?

But, as you say, script is king. As long as you choose the format appropriate for your story it doesn't matter :)

[nanosound]

For those who would like to approximate the film look, take a look at Magic Bullet (http://www.theorphanage.com/). Not film, but can be pretty useful. The founders used to work at ILM.

[D*I*S_Frontman]

Thanks for the Magic Bullet link. Very interesting product. pricey, but if it does what it claims to be able to do, I'd use it for some things.

Is there any hope that they will make it a FCP plug-in rather than an After Effects plug-in? I don't use After Effects and don't care to buy it right now. Any thoughts?

[LethalWolfe]

One of the things that people hope FCP 4 will have is full AE plug in support. Currently I think it can take some AE plug-ins but not all.


Lethal

[nanosound]

DIS: You should email Stu there--he could answer your question. But I would think it is the next logical step for it.