Final Cut Pro 6, Final Cut Extreme Details? Displays (again)?

[MacRumors]

ThinkSecret, writing for PCMagazine, 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, 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.

[ Digg This ]

[FF_productions]

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]

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]

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.

[studiomusic]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Macrumors

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Macrumors

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]

Originally Posted by FF_productions

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]

Originally Posted by nagromme

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]

Originally Posted by LaDirection

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]

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]

Originally Posted by nazmac21

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Macrumors

[url=http://www.macrumors.com][img]Regarding displays, 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]

Originally Posted by brianus

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 will come to our rescue soon. He has a RED on order.

[stagi]

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]

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]

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]

Leopard and FCS 6 breathes new life in my G5 Quad...

[flyinmac]

Originally Posted by Multimedia

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]

Originally Posted by MacsRgr8

Leopard and FCS 6 breathes new life in my G5 Quad...

Especially since your G5 Quad uses 64 bit processors