Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
64,178
31,924
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 in December. The list includes:

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

A Panasonic and Apple Press Release from April 2002 hinted at future Final Cut Pro support for their DVCPRO50 tape deck and 24P camcorder.

Other updates expected include Shake 3 and DVD Studio Pro 2.
 

iJon

macrumors 604
Feb 7, 2002
6,586
229
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
 

trebblekicked

macrumors 6502a
Dec 30, 2002
896
3
Chicago, IL, USA
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

macrumors 65816
Jul 25, 2002
1,228
39
New Albany, IN
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

macrumors 68020
May 9, 2001
2,495
-1
Miami
What is 24fps editing? I mean, you can output your movies at 24fps now, isn't? or si it something else?
 

Macpoops

macrumors 6502
Jan 15, 2002
433
0
PA
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

macrumors 603
Jul 3, 2002
5,541
406
Middle Earth
MyMemory-

Panasonic AGDVX1000 24P Camera

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

macrumors newbie
Mar 29, 2003
17
0
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

macrumors 6502a
Apr 30, 2002
528
48
NH
Time to upgrade (again)

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

macrumors 6502a
Jan 2, 2003
708
0
The land of delusions, CA.
I'd agree if I knew the Panasonic...

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
MyMemory-

Panasonic AGDVX1000 24P Camera

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
 

nuckinfutz

macrumors 603
Jul 3, 2002
5,541
406
Middle Earth
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

macrumors 68020
May 9, 2001
2,495
-1
Miami
Re: I'd agree if I knew the Panasonic...

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.
 

shadowfax

macrumors 603
Sep 6, 2002
5,849
0
Houston, TX
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

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,370
124
Los Angeles
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
 

jelloshotsrule

macrumors G3
Feb 7, 2002
9,596
4
serendipity
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.
 

GregGomer

macrumors member
Jul 24, 2002
60
0
FCP feature predictions

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

macrumors member
Mar 27, 2003
75
0
why 24 fps makes a difference

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.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.