Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Final Cut Pro 4 - Monday
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
Re: why 24 fps makes a difference
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.
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.
FCP4
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 f**k 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)
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 f**k 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)
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.
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.
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 f**king matter what you shoot on if the story is good.
Anyway, by the time my current project wraps I'll hopefully have enough $$$ saved up to get FCP 4 and by that time all the "new software" bugs will hopefully we worked out.
Lethal
Maybe I was being too drastic. It will probably stick around as seperate package for people shooting film for film distribution, but as far as the "24p for video" side of Cinema Tools that part, IMO, has to be native in FCP. Even though not very many people shoot in 24p it's become enough of a buzzword that a new NLE w/o 24p support is going to be lagging behind.
Re: "mundane things"
Stuff like better media management, better EDL support, and better OMF support. Stuff that helps FCP talk to other hi-end audio and video software better and general refinements that mature software should have.
Re: lighting
I never said lighting for video was easier. I said it takes less light to get the job done.
And before this video vs film pissing contest gets a full head of steam I'd just like to say it doesn't f**king matter what you shoot on if the story is good.
Anyway, by the time my current project wraps I'll hopefully have enough $$$ saved up to get FCP 4 and by that time all the "new software" bugs will hopefully we worked out.
Lethal
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.
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.
FCP 4 and stuff.
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 **** 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
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 **** 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
For those who would like to approximate the film look, take a look at Magic Bullet. Not film, but can be pretty useful. The founders used to work at ILM.
Magic Bullet
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?
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?
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
Lethal