Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
and let's not forget about Finder-level bin/project/user settings management with Avid. Being able to move/copy bins around in the Finder is huge as an asst editor as well.

Using FCP project files as pseudo-bins wouldn't really work since you can't really manage them in a "master project".
 
BACKGROUND
- I produce live sports TV for a living (mostly baseball).
- I produce documentaries on the side for "fun".
- I worked for AVID 8 years ago as a QA Engineer.

THOUGHTS
- FCP Server will be very useful in lots of small/medium/large edit houses.
- FCP Server will be far from perfect on delivery.
- FCP Server will help revolutionize editing workflow.

OTHER THOUGHTS
- People talking poorly about delivery time or lack of functionality are DEAD WRONG.
- Apple's pro apps team is one of the best in the business.
- Final Cut Pro has forced Avid to offer affordable products.
- Video editing applications are one of the most complicated applications in existence. For every single action you take in FCP there are probably another forty ways to do the same thing (forty is exaggerated, but five is not an exaggeration).
- Video editing applications are one of the most complicated applications in existence. FCP has to handle various frame rates, resolutions, formats, etc...

APPLE ISN'T PERFECT - BUT THEY'RE PRO APPS TEAM ARE PRETTY DARN AMAZING!
 
just because colour sold for $25000 doesn't mean it's worth that. That seems an extraordinary price to me.

Then you don't know much about film/video production. Color is essentially a software-only implementation of the $80k+ DaVinci systems. Including that with a $499 upgrade from FCS1 or the entire suite for $1299 is one of the biggest bargains for low-budget film/TV ever. FC Studio will not come down in price. It is definitely priced well within the range of indie filmmakers and I don't see any reason for Apple to lower it further.
 
just because colour sold for $25000 doesn't mean it's worth that. That seems an extraordinary price to me.
Welcome to the world of professional video software and hardware. When Final Touch (what is now Color) was software only, $25k, and considered inexpensive for what it could do. High end color grading systems can easily run into the six figure range. Back in 2002ish a company I was working for was thinking about going HD and a single Avid setup to accommodate that was $100k. Camera systems (camera + accessories) can easily run into the six figure range as well w/a single lens costing 10's of thousands of dollars. Tape decks used to make master tapes for delivery cost 10's of thousands of dollars (a low-end DVCPro HD deck is $25k, and an HDCAM deck is around $60-70k).

$1299 is easily chump change in the industry which is a big reason why FCP has been able to make such huge strides in market share. It's too cheap *not* to buy a copy and kick the tires.


Lethal
 
Welcome to the world of professional video software and hardware. When Final Touch (what is now Color) was software only, $25k, and considered inexpensive for what it could do. High end color grading systems can easily run into the six figure range. Back in 2002ish a company I was working for was thinking about going HD and a single Avid setup to accommodate that was $100k. Camera systems (camera + accessories) can easily run into the six figure range as well w/a single lens costing 10's of thousands of dollars. Tape decks used to make master tapes for delivery cost 10's of thousands of dollars (a low-end DVCPro HD deck is $25k, and an HDCAM deck is around $60-70k).

$1299 is easily chump change in the industry which is a big reason why FCP has been able to make such huge strides in market share. It's too cheap *not* to buy a copy and kick the tires.


Lethal

Exactly. Nice to see some others on here that work in the biz.
 
Contrary to what my Macrumors SN indicates, I've been using FCP for about 6 years now after learning Avid in college. What do I see in the market? Well, certainly not the absolute death of Avid, but it's in decline. They would be smart to focus on the high end client they still own.
Adobe is situating itself to be the new Apple/FCP. Yes, I said Adobe. Think of it this way. Back when FCP was introduced, it was up against Avid and what won the day for FCP? It's ease us use and ultimately how well it played with HD for much cheaper than the competing Avid systems of the time. It was new, fresh, and a better, more cost effective way of doing things for many many users.
Well, now it's 2008, and Adobe stands in a positions very similar to Apple a few years back. Adobe is the upstart in video these days, they will feel the need to innovate like Apple once did, and I believe their version of Apple's "HD inroads" will be how their programs handle the RAW workflow.
Apple has had their time at the top of the heap, in 2 or 3 year I think we'll see Adobe up there if they play their cards right and eventually, Avid may make a comeback. Nobody stays on top forever, and in these days of quickly evolving technology a company's time at the top will grow shorter and shorter.
 
Not quite true... Trick for sharing projects in Final Cut..

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.

I'll agree.. the last time I worked on Final Cut on version 4.5 HD in a production facility it was still very buggy when it came to managing media and onlining footage. Speed changes always needed to be re-done in online ect. BUT, you can have two editors or more working in the same project in Final Cut, sorta... it just requires some cheating. Instead of thinking of a project as a project... think of a project as a SEQUENCE or SUPERBIN with sequences. A system can be created where you open multiple projects like you would bins and work together that way.

I work in an all AVID facility now... And when 2 editors are working in the same BIN it's locked and you can't save to the bin. Think of Final Cut PROJECTS like they are locked bins... and try treating a workflow like that. I've honestly never tried it.. but been told it works... just takes some organization on all editors and assistant editors parts.
 
Care to back up that assertion?

Sure. We have Avid Unity ISIS at our school. While it is infinitely more amazing than any workflow/system of the past, it has major drawbacks to it - one of them being the lack of a good asset management system. We use ContentAgent, which is made by a London-based company called Root6, and it is just horrible in how it lacks integration with the Unity and how we have to spend hours and hours on end transcoding files so it can manage them, when the rest of our workflow is file-format-blind.

I'm not saying that Final Cut Server is the end-all answer. But it is clear that the niche is far from having been filled.


irmongoose
 
I'll agree.. the last time I worked on Final Cut on version 4.5 HD in a production facility it was still very buggy when it came to managing media and onlining footage. Speed changes always needed to be re-done in online ect. BUT, you can have two editors or more working in the same project in Final Cut, sorta... it just requires some cheating. Instead of thinking of a project as a project... think of a project as a SEQUENCE or SUPERBIN with sequences. A system can be created where you open multiple projects like you would bins and work together that way.
Yeah, you *can* do it FCP, but it's cumbersome and requires much more effort than it should. It's kinda like running a marathon in high heels. You can do it, but it's not that great an experience. :p


FCPnewbie brings up some good points and Apple really needs to bounce back from the 2yr slow down caused by Leopard, the iPhone, and switching from PPC to Intel. The addition of Color was sweet, but nearly a year later there are still a lot of problems w/the integration of Color and FCP. Apple has gone "broad" w/it's Pro Apps, but can it go "deep"? Will Apple put in the time and effort to start doing all the "little things" that will take the final cut suite to the next level? Adobe's CS3 integration is very strong and they certainly are trying to push Premiere forward so people will stop thinking of it as the app that FCP killed. If Apple isn't careful it will lose much of the momentum FCP has built up over the past few years.


-A
 
A system can be created where you open multiple projects like you would bins and work together that way.

I work in an all AVID facility now... And when 2 editors are working in the same BIN it's locked and you can't save to the bin. Think of Final Cut PROJECTS like they are locked bins... and try treating a workflow like that. I've honestly never tried it.. but been told it works... just takes some organization on all editors and assistant editors parts.

Yeah, but there's no real way to navigate and manage all of those pseudo-bins from inside Final Cut. You'd been flipping back and forth to the finder in order to grab the "bin" you want. It's like running an Avid project that has no bins in it and only referencing other bins projects, that's a total pain.

Sure in Avid you can't save the bin that someone else is working in. But it is much easier (from an asst editor standpoint) to be able to work and organize within an editor's project while they are working on it. Using FCP project files as bins wouldn't allow us to do that.
 
At my work we use all avid and the media manager we use is called Interplay, i think it's from avid to and it does about the same as i expect from fcp server organizing all the media, at home i only have one Mac with fcp so i won't be finding out any time soon how this server works ,lol.

I do think that Avid is still along way ahead if it comes down to huge companies with multiple edit suites but only there, the small busineses go more and more fcp .

PS not being able to save to the bin thats already open in an other edit set is what happens at my work to.
 
BACKGROUND
- I produce live sports TV for a living (mostly baseball).

Any hockey? I graduate in May and "want" to do sports mostly hockey (NHL) Do you have any advice? :eek:

I wounder how this will play with Avid's version. I think its called Interplay if i'm not mistaken.
 
Any hockey? I graduate in May and "want" to do sports mostly hockey (NHL) Do you have any advice? :eek:

I wounder how this will play with Avid's version. I think its called Interplay if i'm not mistaken.

Puckhead - Internships, Internships and then more internships... Be everyone's best friend. Be the most professional guy there and get dirty when necessary. Sports TV and live TV is mostly a dying medium with smaller and smaller budgets and thus smaller and smaller crews. Find a niche... learn everything... I'm dropping you a PM with my email... drop me a note.
 
Good mac to run this

I think this software could play a major role in the production facility I edit at. We are a fully Apple based FCS2 operation & have issues with asset management. We have 3 Mac Pro FCS2 suites, share files off the companies server, use some files locally, have to consolidate projects back and forth-basically it can get messy at times. The Production Manager has a windows box as well and has very limited access to our files. Final Cut Server would most likely help our situation.

I'm guessing we'll have to buy another mac, stick it in the control room, and run Final Cut Server from it. Then attach external hard drives to it (we have tons of running footage to share).

What kind of computer system would be capable of running this, and running it well? Of course, I'd rather spend less on the new system than our current ones (quad 3ghz with quadro fx cards), but I'd also like to have...speed.
 
Just wondering...

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


Lethal

I was just wondering about a price reduction because:

A) It has been about a year since FCS2 has been released, which could mean a third release soon.
B) The NAB Show is later this week.
C) Servers are usually more expensive than their standalone counterparts.

I know that the applications are huge and would be expensive if bought these separately. However, I am speaking from the point of view of a starving college student who is about to graduate in about a year.
 
I was just wondering about a price reduction because:

A) It has been about a year since FCS2 has been released, which could mean a third release soon.
B) The NAB Show is later this week.
C) Servers are usually more expensive than their standalone counterparts.

I know that the applications are huge and would be expensive if bought these separately. However, I am speaking from the point of view of a starving college student who is about to graduate in about a year.
Final Cut has typically seen a major update every other year (so most likely no FCS3 until '09), but even if FCS3 came out at NAB the price wouldn't drop (although you could probably find copies of FCS2 on eBay at under retail pricing). If you are a student you can get the EDU version for $6-$700 bucks but, from experience, you should focus more on getting an internship or job at a post or production facility than on breaking the bank to get a copy of Final Cut for your home machine. When "cheap" editing suites were $60k there were starving students fresh out of college and they managed to make it in the industry so don't worry about it too much. ;)


Lethal
 
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.

interesting. so for example, would be a situation where 4 macs for example can work on the same project on a network? So instead of copying it and doing all over. The Mac Pro can make changes to it while somebody turns on their MBP and they equally make changes to it and its all being done on the same video project?
 
interesting. so for example, would be a situation where 4 macs for example can work on the same project on a network? So instead of copying it and doing all over. The Mac Pro can make changes to it while somebody turns on their MBP and they equally make changes to it and its all being done on the same video project?
Because of how FCP operates two people can't be making and saving changes in the same project file at the same time. Just going by the limited info out there right now it looks like FC Server will allow you to "check out" a project which locks it so other users can't change it while you are working on it. This keeps two people from accidently working on the same project file and having user A overwrite all the changes user B has made.


Lethal
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

Though the ability to have more than one user work on the same project would be great this still represents a great addition to the Apple pro line. Perhaps in an update they will allow sequences to be locked instead of projects, but in the meantime it means breaking a single "project" into multiple project files. All in all not too bad. And a great price...
 
apple and blueray

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.


why does apple need blue-ray? they have ipods,iphones,itunes and apple TV ... why propagate a competing technology they won't own or use with their money making products ...... doesn't have anything to do with Sony not setting standards ...... Apple would probably be happy to let all forms of disc technology die
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.