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 6, Final Cut Extreme Details? Displays (again)?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So...if the current thoughts that Leopard isn't quite ready for prime time are true (meaning Apple releases it the last day of spring), and the thoughts that the new FCP requires Leopard are true...FCS might not actually ship until early summer.
64 bit processors
Sure is fascinating how "spin" can sell a feature, and delberate oversight can steer attention away and neutralize the hype driven by the original
headlines. 64-BIT is back, babeeeee.........
Sure is fascinating how "spin" can sell a feature, and delberate oversight can steer attention away and neutralize the hype driven by the original
headlines. 64-BIT is back, babeeeee.........
In the "film world" they measure resolution by the number of pixels along the widest edge of the frame. This makes sense as film is made in only a few widths but the hight of the frame depends of the aspect ratio which can vary.
In the "video world" they measure the number of lines in the frame.
So if you hear about "2K" or "4K" that is the width in pixels of a scanned film frame. But I think there is now some convergence with video camera that can do film formats. All of this is way out of what I can afford For my use DV still looks good
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.
the people who said that were correct for the overwhelming majority of users. Most people who need this software probably weren't buying core duo imacs and mac minis.
Yes, it was interesting how Apple wouldn't acknowledge in any public documents whether the CoreDuo was 32-BIT or 64-BIT. It was just left unmentioned.
By not mentioning it at all, it looked as if:
1) They knew people would be less interested if they knew
2) They were deliberately hiding it
In terms of technology, it was as if we had stepped-back to the G4 in order to move forwards. Sure, it was faster, dual-core, and more powerful than the G4. But, essentially it was stepping back two steps to move forward 3.
For buyers who care about specs (and had paid attention to Apple's deliberate 64-BIT push), it would have made more sense to never step backwards in any aspect and to have only moved forward. In other words, go from 64-BIT to 64-BIT and then advance.
The people that bought the CoreDuo Macbook Pro's before C2D came are stuck with 32 bit processors, I believe it's them he's talking about.
I was in that group of people that waited forever for C2D, and there was a lot of talk about it, and most people, even pretty "pro" people meant that 32/64 wouldn't matter in quite some years.
Older Systems
I hope that late powerbook owners get a break too. Or Apple may have a lot of angry Pro users go to the new Adobe for kicks.
I hope that late powerbook owners get a break too. Or Apple may have a lot of angry Pro users go to the new Adobe for kicks.
wait wait wait, my Mac Pro 2.66 isn't 64-bit??? wtf? seriously? omg
OOops, never mind, you were referring to the Mac Books (right?).
Dual-Core Intel Xeon up to 3GHz
Every Mac Pro offers the incredible power of two 64-bit Dual-Core Intel Xeon “Woodcrest” microprocessors. You choose the processor speed — 2GHz, 2.66GHz, or 3GHz.
3840 x 2160 Is The Most Likely The Next Big Thing
Anything larger than 3840 x 2160 will surprise me. That in itself would be a huge leap forward in screen resolution. And interpolation of both HDTV standards would upscale most elegantly:
3 x 1280 = 3840
3 x 720 = 2160
2 x 1920 = 3840
2 x 1080 = 2160
This makes the most logical sense to me as to why this will be the most we should expect and/or hope for. The x-factor is how large will their diameter be? 40", 50"? Who knows?
Anything larger than 3840 x 2160 will surprise me. That in itself would be a huge leap forward in screen resolution. And interpolation of both HDTV standards would upscale most elegantly:
3 x 1280 = 3840
3 x 720 = 2160
2 x 1920 = 3840
2 x 1080 = 2160
This makes the most logical sense to me as to why this will be the most we should expect and/or hope for. The x-factor is how large will their diameter be? 40", 50"? Who knows?
DVCProHD Is Already Supported Since 5.1.2
Who's arm and leg? They are already approaching only $499. That isn't too much for this early in the adoption phase.
DVCProHD is already supported since 5.1.2. We're up to 5.1.4 now.
Who's arm and leg? They are already approaching only $499. That isn't too much for this early in the adoption phase.
ARRI D20 Support
I'm sceptical to this article as they state that it wil bring support for the ARRI D20. The D20 is based on the Sony HDCAM SR format and thus records it's image uncompressed to SR tape. Anyone with knowledge of this system would know that. Seems like the author simply typed up a list of the most well known cameras.
EDIT: And in regards to CineAlta support. I'm an F900 owner and that is a CineAlta camera. CineAlta is simply a marketing gimmick invented by Sony for anything you can record on at 24 fps.
I'm sceptical to this article as they state that it wil bring support for the ARRI D20. The D20 is based on the Sony HDCAM SR format and thus records it's image uncompressed to SR tape. Anyone with knowledge of this system would know that. Seems like the author simply typed up a list of the most well known cameras.
EDIT: And in regards to CineAlta support. I'm an F900 owner and that is a CineAlta camera. CineAlta is simply a marketing gimmick invented by Sony for anything you can record on at 24 fps.
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.
I use to think like you did until i bought the 24 inch dell screen. and its amazing. And i work in print where color is critical and i havne't had any issues after calibrating it with spyder pro.
I wouldn't be surprised if FCP 6 was 64bit only. At the end, it's a pro app where having more than 2-3gb of memory makes a LOT of sense.
It's going to be a difficult decision to take for Apple, as they sold a lot of 32bit intel computers, but I believe that's the way it's going to be. Also, that would make FCP6 Leopard dependant (as Tiger can't handle 64 bit GUI apps), even if it doesn't use CoreVideo and so on.
I was thinking yesterday in those secret features in Leopard... and somewhat the recent article (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070227-8931.html) came to my head... what if they are doing some kind of framework (say, CoreSpeed or some marketing-wise term) to handle GPU accelerated functions easy for developers? I guess that maybe even the stock GeForce 7300 that came with my Mac Pro would be able to speed certain type of operations if used correctly... imagine a framework where the OS decided if an operation can be performed faster in the GPU or the CPU, and execute it there? Suddenly PS works so much faster in Mac OS X 10.5 than in the same computer running Windows... or Safari opens 3 times faster!!!
They have a limited set of graphic cards... they do the drivers... doesn't sound so strange to me... anyway... I don't know how hard could it be to implement... but if they are doing acceleration cards using CELL maybe they alredy have some kind of framework inplace...
It could help to sell some (or a lot!) equipment to the HPC niche... they already have the XGrid thing...
Anyway, can't wait for Leopard...
It's going to be a difficult decision to take for Apple, as they sold a lot of 32bit intel computers, but I believe that's the way it's going to be. Also, that would make FCP6 Leopard dependant (as Tiger can't handle 64 bit GUI apps), even if it doesn't use CoreVideo and so on.
I was thinking yesterday in those secret features in Leopard... and somewhat the recent article (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070227-8931.html) came to my head... what if they are doing some kind of framework (say, CoreSpeed or some marketing-wise term) to handle GPU accelerated functions easy for developers? I guess that maybe even the stock GeForce 7300 that came with my Mac Pro would be able to speed certain type of operations if used correctly... imagine a framework where the OS decided if an operation can be performed faster in the GPU or the CPU, and execute it there? Suddenly PS works so much faster in Mac OS X 10.5 than in the same computer running Windows... or Safari opens 3 times faster!!!
They have a limited set of graphic cards... they do the drivers... doesn't sound so strange to me... anyway... I don't know how hard could it be to implement... but if they are doing acceleration cards using CELL maybe they alredy have some kind of framework inplace...
It could help to sell some (or a lot!) equipment to the HPC niche... they already have the XGrid thing...
Anyway, can't wait for Leopard...
I'm hoping that FCP 6 will have AVCHD format support (for those prosumer nerds with one of the Sony HD camcorders that you can't edit on the mac). I also would think that having an HDMI input (not just an output) would be a boon for these same people. Then again, I wouldn't be completely surprised is apple just ****s over people with Sony hardware. However, panasonic has also announced hardware using AVCHD and it seems like a good format for higher end consumer use.
DVCProHD is already supported since 5.1.2. We're up to 5.1.4 now.
Who's arm and leg? They are already approaching only $499. That isn't too much for this early in the adoption phase.
Not if you are using the Panasonic P2 cards. DVCPROHD files in P2 cards are all .mfx files that are not natively supported by FCP 5.X.X yet.
I just hope that Apple is not making us wait till Developers conference or whatever month in order to sell the Mac Pro + Leopard. But Apple did announced that Leopard will be available in the spring though
I hope Leopard will be revealed during PMA and then the new Mac Pro will be available to order right after NAB.
Hey man, I loved their "Extreme Nachos"...
I'd like to see a new king of Apple displays.
PMA Is Too Soon For Leopard To Come Out Of It's Cage
Thanks for the clarification. I did not know that. the Photo Marketing Assn show in Las Vegas next week March 8-11 appears to be just an Aperture showcase opportunity and since it's so soon unlikely to be the Leopard announcement time.Not if you are using the Panasonic P2 cards. DVCPROHD files in P2 cards are all .mfx files that are not natively supported by FCP 5.X.X yet.
I just hope that Apple is not making us wait till Developers conference or whatever month in order to sell the Mac Pro + Leopard. But Apple did announced that Leopard will be available in the spring though
I hope Leopard will be revealed during PMA and then the new Mac Pro will be available to order right after NAB.
AVCHD Seems Fundamentally Flawed To Me
I guess I need a better sales person to convince me it will last.
Seems more likely to be a prominent part of iMovie 7 and Final Cut Express 4's new features although I agree it should be supported in FCP6 as well. This format troubles me. I see the compression scheme as inferior to the HDV scheme. Plus how you gonna archive all that non-tape footage? Fundamentally problematic to my way of thinking.
I guess I need a better sales person to convince me it will last.
Have to wait for April for display updates? Oh man, this is killing me... I've been promising my wife she would get my 23" when Apple refreshes their lineup for months now...
I was thinking along the same lines when I read this-- not so much in the GPU as with a Cell coprocessor. NeXT boxes had a DSP chip on the motherboard to accelerate certain operations, so the concept wouldn't be foreign to a lot of the developers.I was thinking yesterday in those secret features in Leopard... and somewhat the recent article (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070227-8931.html) came to my head... what if they are doing some kind of framework (say, CoreSpeed or some marketing-wise term) to handle GPU accelerated functions easy for developers? I guess that maybe even the stock GeForce 7300 that came with my Mac Pro would be able to speed certain type of operations if used correctly... imagine a framework where the OS decided if an operation can be performed faster in the GPU or the CPU, and execute it there? Suddenly PS works so much faster in Mac OS X 10.5 than in the same computer running Windows... or Safari opens 3 times faster!!!
They have a limited set of graphic cards... they do the drivers... doesn't sound so strange to me... anyway... I don't know how hard could it be to implement... but if they are doing acceleration cards using CELL maybe they alredy have some kind of framework inplace...
It could help to sell some (or a lot!) equipment to the HPC niche... they already have the XGrid thing...
Anyway, can't wait for Leopard...
I can't speak for all the C2D poo pooers, but for myself I was arguing that there was no real advantage to C2D in a laptop before Santa Rosa. I still think that's true. It's a pretty small segment that needs that much memory and the raw performance of the CPUs isn't much different with the current chipset.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.
They have been updating FCP 5.1.x with several new format capacities. That takes care of 32 bit users, just like 10.4.9 takes care of legacy CPU systems.
FCP6 and 10.5 are new paradigms and can realistically increase the minimum system requirements without leaving anyone in the cold.
People who "need" the more advanced capacities are willing, or should be willing, to do so on a very recent (G5 or C2D or Xeon +) piece of equipment.
To me the good news is now Apple is at least trying not to release crippleware.
As for intel 32 bit whiners, let's not forget you got much higher speed, multi-app capacity, virtualization, and market share. It was in hindsight a wonderful decision.
Rocketman
FCP6 and 10.5 are new paradigms and can realistically increase the minimum system requirements without leaving anyone in the cold.
People who "need" the more advanced capacities are willing, or should be willing, to do so on a very recent (G5 or C2D or Xeon +) piece of equipment.
To me the good news is now Apple is at least trying not to release crippleware.
As for intel 32 bit whiners, let's not forget you got much higher speed, multi-app capacity, virtualization, and market share. It was in hindsight a wonderful decision.
Rocketman
All of Apple's laptops used 32 bit processors at the time of the Intel switch over. Those systems lost nothing since they never had 64b capable CPUs to begin with. The only system that lost 64b capability was the iMac and the iMac only had a 64b CPU for a relatively short amount of time.