Apple Ships Final Cut Server

[milo]

Someone had to whine or gripe, so it may as well be me. I'm still waiting for a new DVDSP revision.

I don't understand what apple is doing with their pro apps. These days it seems like they release one .0.1 bugfix release, then let the apps languish with known bugs for months or years until the next paid upgrade.

Don't they understand that pros are depending on these apps to make a living and REALLY would benefit from frequent updates to quash bugs?

 

[flashframe]

Nice work Sunil

This is a ripe market that has no serious contenders. It'll be interesting to see how this holds up - if it's even close to what the hype is (or was), they've definitely got a winner.


irmongoose

I checked out your short "Beyond" - nicely shot and directed. Good job.

 

[fluidedge]

it annoys me when people say things like "nail in the coffin for Avid" as if there is no life outside of Final Cut.

Avid is still huge and will continue to be. It's a big player in the live broadcast market.

 

[MacsAttack]

it annoys me when people say things like "nail in the coffin for Avid" as if there is no life outside of Final Cut.

Avid is still huge and will continue to be. It's a big player in the live broadcast market.

So they are a bit like Quark was when InDesign was introduced?

 

[change]

it annoys me when people say things like "nail in the coffin for Avid" as if there is no life outside of Final Cut.

Avid is still huge and will continue to be. It's a big player in the live broadcast market.

I'm not saying there's nothing outside of Apple products, just that Avid has possibly underestimated Apple. Avid is way bigger than Apple in live broadcast, but that's no guarantee for the future. Apple also needs to be worried about keeping up to date and competitive too, see below (and i agree):

Someone had to whine or gripe, so it may as well be me. I'm still waiting for a new DVDSP revision.

Now that Blu-ray has won out, Apple needs to be on that ASAP. They need the encoding and authoring tools before they need the BTO Blu-ray drives. Those Motion freezes and crashes are definitely not helping Final Cut's case either. I try to give credit (or warnings) where credit is due.

 

[MacsAttack]

Now that Blu-ray has won out, Apple needs to be on that ASAP.

As the Blueray specs are still a little up in the air I'm not surprised that Apple are not on that ASAP. Unless you fancy the idea of having a Blueray drive that can't do Blueray because Sony made a few more changes.

 

[milo]

As the Blueray specs are still a little up in the air I'm not surprised that Apple are not on that ASAP. Unless you fancy the idea of having a Blueray drive that can't do Blueray because Sony made a few more changes.

But the content is shipping. It's not like the studios aren't releasing movies because sony may still tweak the standard. I can see why apple dragged their feet on putting drives in machines, but at this point they need to add bluray AUTHORING asap.

 

[diamond.g]

As the Blueray specs are still a little up in the air I'm not surprised that Apple are not on that ASAP. Unless you fancy the idea of having a Blueray drive that can't do Blueray because Sony made a few more changes.

What is up in the air about BD specs? I thought 2.0 was pretty much it. Even it if wasn't is there anything they could add that the Mac can't do?

 

[change]

As the Blueray specs are still a little up in the air I'm not surprised that Apple are not on that ASAP. Unless you fancy the idea of having a Blueray drive that can't do Blueray because Sony made a few more changes.

Wouldn't these changes be software based? If they were hardware based, if Macs didn't ship with actual drives, it wouldn't really be on Apple. The pros need to be able to author, if need be, whether they use a third party drive or not.

But the content is shipping. It's not like the studios aren't releasing movies because sony may still tweak the standard. I can see why apple dragged their feet on putting drives in machines, but at this point they need to add bluray AUTHORING asap.

I concur.

What is up in the air about BD specs? I thought 2.0 was pretty much it. Even it if wasn't is there anything they could add that the Mac can't do?

Exactly. Software update.

 

[Peel]

What is up in the air about BD specs? I thought 2.0 was pretty much it. Even it if wasn't is there anything they could add that the Mac can't do?

And furthermore, the PS3 have been upgraded from profile 1.0 to 1.1 through a firmware upgrade, and then upgraded again to profile 2.0 in March, so surely if the spec were to change again to a profile higher than 2.0, a firmware upgrade to the drive could handle that.

And again, this is hardware issue - let's get the authoring in place NOW.

 

[illegalprelude]

can somebody explain to me what a Final Cut Server would do? So lets say I put final cut server on 5 Macs...Whats the point instead of having Final Cut Studio on 5 Macs...

Im really lost on this one

 

[fluidedge]

you install final cut server on a server once then client modules on each workstation so that each user has access to the media files they need to complete a project.

 

[diamond.g]

can somebody explain to me what a Final Cut Server would do? So lets say I put final cut server on 5 Macs...Whats the point instead of having Final Cut Studio on 5 Macs...

Im really lost on this one

Actually you would install it on one mac and FCStudio on the 4 Macs. Then all 4 Macs can share resources assets etc.

Really it is for sharing of those things that it makes sense to not duplicate, those assets and clips and whatnot.

 

[bigbossbmb]

and pointing out that no competitors have Asset Management Tools, then Apple announces Final Cut Server... I think Avid hears the nails in the coffin.

Not quite. While FC Server looks nice and is definitely a good/needed addition, Avid is still way ahead in project/asset management. The fact that you can have multiple people working in the same project (not different project files with the same media) will continue to be the advantage for Avid.

The show I work on has three asst editor (including me) and we all need to work on the master tape project. There is still (even with FC Server) no way to do that with FCP. I love editing on FCS at home, but as an asst editor, Avid makes my job a lot easier.

I think FCS will eventually catch up to Avid, but it'll be a LONG time before Avid goes away.

 

[tk421]

Avid's video product sales are already down, and their "confidence" in slashing their prices in half, and pointing out that no competitors have Asset Management Tools, then Apple announces Final Cut Server... I think Avid hears the nails in the coffin. They need to do something FAST if they want to stay in this game. I'm looking forward to checking out Final Cut Server. I don't think i am in dire need of it, but i know plenty of people that are! I think the delays and the beta period are fine. Pros need software they can count on to work, and work quickly, easily, and thoroughly. I wouldn't want to use Microsoft Windows Vista Professional Video Editing Suite, would you?

Avid slashing their prices will help them. It was a reaction to competition. I personally think it was a great move, and I personally know several people that bought Avid products as a direct result.

Apple still doesn't match Avid's Unity system. It is awesome being able to have multiple editors on a single project the way it is managed.

All in all, the competition is a good thing. Avid has made some much needed changes in response to Apple, and Final Cut has continued to grow in an effort to match some of Avid's features.

There are things I really like (and things that bug me) about both Avid and Final Cut.

 

[jeffpatt]

FCS used to be a product called artbox, which Apple bought a couple of years ago. I use artbox every day, even two years after the original company disappeared.

artbox is remarkable, and the Apple version looks even better. artbox's interface has always been excessively complicated, and FCS looks much cleaner.

As for what it does, well it manages your assets. It will automatically track changes to folders, network shares and FTP sites. You then use the java app to search for these assets. Everything is thumbnailed, and it understands a dizzying array of graphic formats. Just about everything you can imagine, including long-dead and obscure formats.

What I really like is the Watcher feature. Set up a watch folder, and any file you drop into it is automatically dealt with by FCS as you see fit. In our shop, we copy the file into our main filestore, tag it with a label, email the relevant departments and move the original into a temporary "trash" folder. This all happens automatically whenever a new file is dropped into that folder. We have about a dozen watcher folders in our shop--you can have as many as you need.

As I said, I'm using the pre-Apple product, and I love it. I can only imagine how much better they've made it.

One other note: artbox cost my station $50,000.

 

[tk421]

Not quite. While FC Server looks nice and is definitely a good/needed addition, Avid is still way ahead in project/asset management. The fact that you can have multiple people working in the same project (not different project files with the same media) will continue to be the advantage for Avid.

The show I work on has three asst editor (including me) and we all need to work on the master tape project. There is still (even with FC Server) no way to do that with FCP. I love editing on FCS at home, but as an asst editor, Avid makes my job a lot easier.

I think FCS will eventually catch up to Avid, but it'll be a LONG time before Avid goes away.

On this page, it looks like you have to have multiple projects in Final Cut Server:

finalcutserver/collaboration[/URL]]Multiple Final Cut Pro editors can work on different sections of a film or video production at the same time through Final Cut Server. Just create a separate project for each segment of the production. These projects share the same referenced assets, with no need for additional copies or storage. When the sequences are finished, the separate projects can be assembled into a single master project for further editing and delivery.

Not as nice as Avid, but it's getting there.

I think the only real contender in this specific arena is Avid, and frankly their current offerings just suck.

Care to back up that assertion?

 

[Crtaylor]

I no longer care about the time delay. At least this software finally got released! (If they only made Final Cut Pro cross-platform.)

In response to "illegalprelude", the point of there being a Final Cut Server is to spread the video assets across an entire network of computers through a central hub to increase data flow and productivity. If you had just Final Cut Studio installed on five Macs on a similar network, you would not have as swift of a production. The individual computers would have to load the same project over and over again as it switched between them, including all of the assests. Since video files are huge anyway, that would eat up a lot of time, and if all of the computers were not updated it would be worse. They released this product so an entire studio or facility could share truckloads of assests without encountering those types of problems.

 

[Crtaylor]

Hmmm...

I wonder if FCS2 will go the way of Logic Studio and go down to a more reasonable price. After all, the new server is $300 cheaper than FCS2. If they were to do that, I hope they do something about this "Phenomenon" project that was rumored two years ago to come out this year. I really miss Shake not being updated for a long time.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Actually you would install it on one mac and FCStudio on the 4 Macs. Then all 4 Macs can share resources assets etc.

Really it is for sharing of those things that it makes sense to not duplicate, those assets and clips and whatnot.

I no longer care about the time delay. At least this software finally got released! (If they only made Final Cut Pro cross-platform.)

In response to "illegalprelude", the point of there being a Final Cut Server is to spread the video assets across an entire network of computers through a central hub to increase data flow and productivity. If you had just Final Cut Studio installed on five Macs on a similar network, you would not have as swift of a production. The individual computers would have to load the same project over and over again as it switched between them, including all of the assests. Since video files are huge anyway, that would eat up a lot of time, and if all of the computers were not updated it would be worse. They released this product so an entire studio or facility could share truckloads of assests without encountering those types of problems.

Not really. Final Cut Sever is a bit of a misnomer. Final Cut Manager or Final Cut Organizer would be a more fitting title. You can already share assets between machines using products like Apples xSan or Editshare to act as centralized shared storage solutions. What Final Cut Server does, basically, is allow you to better organize and share your assets. A very basic analogy would be Final Cut Server is to media organization what iPhotos is to picture organization. Instead of mucking around in Finder you use the application to organize, find, and share your media.


Lethal

 

[LethalWolfe]

I wonder if FCS2 will go the way of Logic Studio and go down to a more reasonable price. After all, the new server is $300 cheaper than FCS2. If they were to do that, I hope they do something about this "Phenomenon" project that was rumored two years ago to come out this year. I really miss Shake not being updated for a long time.

FCS2 is over $30k worth of apps retailing for $1299. How much cheaper do you want it to be?


Lethal

 

[matperk]

Not quite. While FC Server looks nice and is definitely a good/needed addition, Avid is still way ahead in project/asset management. The fact that you can have multiple people working in the same project (not different project files with the same media) will continue to be the advantage for Avid.

The show I work on has three asst editor (including me) and we all need to work on the master tape project. There is still (even with FC Server) no way to do that with FCP. I love editing on FCS at home, but as an asst editor, Avid makes my job a lot easier.

I think FCS will eventually catch up to Avid, but it'll be a LONG time before Avid goes away.

However, don't you still have to create multiple bins inside a project file in order to edit simultaneously in Avid? Wouldn't that be pretty similar to making separate projects in FCP?

 

[Cromulent]

FCS2 is over $30k worth of apps retailing for $1299. How much cheaper do you want it to be?


Lethal

Exactly. I think people forget that Colour used to sell for $25,000 before Apple bought the company and added it into FCS.

 

[LethalWolfe]

However, don't you still have to create multiple bins inside a project file in order to edit simultaneously in Avid? Wouldn't that be pretty similar to making separate projects in FCP?

But people create multiple bins anyway. Music, individual tapes, working sequences, final sequences, VO, still images, broll, interviews, gfx, etc.,. all get their own bins. Also many places create bins just for "new media" so assistant editors can drop in new media for the editors to then grab and organize w/in their project as they see fit. Being able to "get inside" a project w/o disrupting the editor is a big benefit for Avid in a multi-editor environment.


Lethal

 

[fluidedge]

just because colour sold for $25000 doesn't mean it's worth that. That seems an extraordinary price to me.

I think on the back of this FCS2 will come down in price a bit - maybe something like $799-$999. Maybe we'll hear something to this effect next week when NAB is on (even though apple won't be there, they will be somewhere in LV!)