Sidebar Sidebar
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, Xserve RAID

LethalWolfe said:
What about Airport MegaExtremeUltra that's faster than fiber so everything can be wireless. :D


Lethal
Click to expand...

That would be the iPod Extreme version. ;)

The mini, flea, nano, micro, pico, and invisa are all done by Steve Jobs. He is taking the reverse route now. :D
 
yoak said:
I´m glad that they are finaly taking Avid head on.

Then there will be no more excuses;)
Click to expand...
hell ya..

fcp has always been a bit clunky... its ui needs a few tweaks, and speed and reliability is all it needs to be a serious competitor to avid.. my only real question is what exactly makes avid so expensive? fcp is only 1k, and the tweaks i just mentioned should come in fcp6, so how does apple possibly plan on filling 10k worth of software..

maybe the 10k actually comes with the hardware..
 
maya said:
That would be the iPod Extreme version. ;)

The mini, nano, micro, pico, and invisa are all done by Steve Jobs. He is taking the reverse route now. :D
Click to expand...
you forgot flea
 
two dual link dvi ports count push that res at a decent refresh rate.
 
virus1 said:
hell ya..

fcp has always been a bit clunky... its ui needs a few tweaks, and speed and reliability is all it needs to be a serious competitor to avid.. my only real question is what exactly makes avid so expensive? fcp is only 1k, and the tweaks i just mentioned should come in fcp6, so how does apple possibly plan on filling 10k worth of software..

maybe the 10k actually comes with the hardware..
Click to expand...

Clunky? Ever used an Avid's circa 1993 interface? And while Avid is still King of the Hill FCP is already a serious competitor and has been for a while. FCP really needs to focus on the nuts and bolts part of the program (media management, shared storage, multiple user environments, etc.,.). That's where people still feel largely more comfortable w/Avid. Speed & bells and whistles are good, but reliability is better. Waiting on a render sucks, but waiting on a repair sucks worse (especially if a client is in the room).

The difference in price is largely due to Avid's hardware and the Avid brand. But I suspect the "Avid name" has less than 5 years real leverage left. Economy of scale also factors into the price too. If you spend $10 million on R&D and have a target demographic of a few thousand potential users you have to price each unit higher than if your target demographic was a few million potential users.


Lethal
 
LethalWolfe said:
Clunky? Ever used an Avid's circa 1993 interface? And while Avid is still King of the Hill FCP is already a serious competitor and has been for a while.

The difference in price is largely due to Avid's hardware and the Avid brand. But I suspect the "Avid name" has less than 5 years real leverage left. Economy of scale also factors into the price too. If you spend $10 million on R&D and have a target demographic of a few thousand potential users you have to price each unit higher than if your target demographic was a few million potential users.


Lethal
Click to expand...
no, i have never used avid, but i assume that with its prices, it is not clunky anymore. so what you are saying is that in order to make sure consumers don't buy it, they make it really expensive? then i just have to ask: why don't they want the consumers to buy it?
 
Randall said:
Sweet Lord... a 50" HD-LCD cinema display! There's gotta be a point where the display is so big that if you look at stuff in the corner you could really hurt your neck. :p
Click to expand...

But no, really. This display seems problematic, be it 50 inches or 30 and insanely high resolution. Isn't it going to be a problem to have most of the information you recieve coming from your peripheral vision? How much can humans take in at once and process? What the hell kind of weight will this put on a system? I mean, the quad kinda knocked socks off, performance wise, but working with that many pixels in video content, it seems to me you'd need to build a mini-super computer to get anything done.

But, this really isn't my field. All I can say is, wow, that's mindboggling. 50 inch display, 10 grand software, quad with maxed ram and GPU... insane.
 
dontmatter said:
But no, really. This display seems problematic, be it 50 inches or 30 and insanely high resolution. Isn't it going to be a problem to have most of the information you recieve coming from your peripheral vision? How much can humans take in at once and process? What the hell kind of weight will this put on a system? I mean, the quad kinda knocked socks off, performance wise, but working with that many pixels in video content, it seems to me you'd need to build a mini-super computer to get anything done.

But, this really isn't my field. All I can say is, wow, that's mindboggling. 50 inch display, 10 grand software, quad with maxed ram and GPU... insane.
Click to expand...

That is exactly why I believe this will be a livingroom Television.If you want to call it that..
 
a couple of years ago i was in the presence of a 4K projector, one on the first in the world in a video editing conference in sound leicester square it was in a word "kickass" the trouble was it required 8 powermacs to run the thing at 60Hz, still it was sweet.
 
virus1 said:
no, i have never used avid, but i assume that with its prices, it is not clunky anymore.
Click to expand...
Nope, the main Avid lines basically use an interface designed back in the early '90's. It's been tweaked here and there, but it's still basically the same.


so what you are saying is that in order to make sure consumers don't buy it, they make it really expensive? then i just have to ask: why don't they want the consumers to buy it?
Click to expand...
It's more expensive, partially, because it's a niche product w/a relatively small customer base (video/film pros).

Another reason for the price difference between Avid and FCP is, I believe, Apple has a very low mark up on it's pro software. They basically price the software so low that pro's can't not consider it as a option. The logic being, it might not be quite as good as Avid, but the cost savings greatly out ways the differences in software. Plus, if you want FCP you have to buy Apple hardware (where Apple has higher mark ups and makes it's money). Apple Software, IMO, is a loss leader for its hardware.


Lethal
 
dontmatter said:
But no, really. This display seems problematic, be it 50 inches or 30 and insanely high resolution. Isn't it going to be a problem to have most of the information you recieve coming from your peripheral vision? How much can humans take in at once and process? What the hell kind of weight will this put on a system? I mean, the quad kinda knocked socks off, performance wise, but working with that many pixels in video content, it seems to me you'd need to build a mini-super computer to get anything done.

But, this really isn't my field. All I can say is, wow, that's mindboggling. 50 inch display, 10 grand software, quad with maxed ram and GPU... insane.
Click to expand...

It's definitely designed for a high end (most likely film post production) environment. A problem w/cutting films digitally has always been judging things on a tiny monitor and trying to imagine how they'll look on the big screen. But if you get a really big, really hi res monitor that becomes less of a problem and probably means fewer actual film screenings will be needed. Producers and studio people can just watch rough cuts on the 50" display that's being driven right from the Mac and Final Cut (thus saving time and money).


Lethal
 
TyleRomeo said:
A LOT OF MONEY. But this isn't for the average Joe consumer that wants a bigger screen. This is for viewing a 4K image. Name one monitor that can do that.
Click to expand...

The IBM T221 comes close (though it's not quite as wide as this monitor is purported to be).
 
combatcolin said:
Steve Announces his "One More Thing"

....and intorducing, the Apple Wall...

Curtain goes up to reveal the back wall is one single monitor with a resolution of 120,000 * 98000.

137 Apple journalists pass out and require medical attention.
The rest just sit there and dribble.
And every Apple store manager present wonders how the **** there going to fit this one in the store window.
Click to expand...

Wow given Apple's recent QC that thing is guaranteed to have dead pixels right out of the box! :rolleyes:
 
alfismoney said:
Keep in mind, Arriflex has been making laser film etchers running at 4k for years and 2k/4k cameras were being tested while George Lucas was shouting his head off about our already obsolete consumer standard, 1080i. the prototypes were running for between $1m and $5m according to the rumor mills. The 'high price' on the RED really isn't that much different than a Panavision 35mm. You can't even buy those from the company, they're lease only, but the bodies are insured against theft and breakage for around 250k. this display and editing system might sound like overkill to some of you guys but film has been waiting for it for years.

the industry has been trying to deal with the bandwidth issues coming from uncompressed color in 4k (i believe the numbers i was reading three years ago were in the realm of 1.5 gigs a second) which certainly screams to the need for a much better storage solution than apple currently provides. don't forget people, Avid's Unity system runs closer to $100,000 for a basic setup and ran off of LVD SCSI last I checked. I guess one could always go out and buy a Smoke system for a cool $250k to get an off-the-shelf 4k editor, but even if you pinch your pennies and buy a Nitris these things aren't cheap.

Coming in with a full system, including hardware and software, for under $40k is a market killer. It's not a market killer I'll ever have in my home but the competition has certainly been living in fear of this moment for the last 2 years. My vote is Microsoft buys Avid within the next 18 months to bail them out of bankruptcy and prevent Apple from cornering the entire professional video market as Mac-only.
Click to expand...

Possibly. Microsoft already owns a good bit of Avid stock 10+% I believe. Something they picked up in the deal where MS sold Softimage to Avid. Suckers.
 
LethalWolfe said:
Nope, the main Avid lines basically use an interface designed back in the early '90's. It's been tweaked here and there, but it's still basically the same.



It's more expensive, partially, because it's a niche product w/a relatively small customer base (video/film pros).

Another reason for the price difference between Avid and FCP is, I believe, Apple has a very low mark up on it's pro software. They basically price the software so low that pro's can't not consider it as a option. The logic being, it might not be quite as good as Avid, but the cost savings greatly out ways the differences in software. Plus, if you want FCP you have to buy Apple hardware (where Apple has higher mark ups and makes it's money). Apple Software, IMO, is a loss leader for its hardware.


Lethal
Click to expand...
so pros buy expensive software because they can? even though software that is just as good will work?

so fcpXtreme will just be a normal fcp, faster, new ui, and a price that just tells prosumers to back off?
 
virus1 said:
no, i have never used avid, but i assume that with its prices, it is not clunky anymore. so what you are saying is that in order to make sure consumers don't buy it, they make it really expensive? then i just have to ask: why don't they want the consumers to buy it?
Click to expand...

With an increased user base, you have an exponential increase in the requirement for effective customer support. For a Pro product, trained engineers and CS are VERY hard to come by.

Notice how many more issues Apple has been having of late with its products. Imagine how many more CS staff they need than they did before iPods took off. And that is just questions like 'how do I reboot?'. Not the level of nonsense that occurs when video software/hardware goes wrong.
 
virus1 said:
so pros buy expensive software because they can? even though software that is just as good will work?

so fcpXtreme will just be a normal fcp, faster, new ui, and a price that just tells prosumers to back off?
Click to expand...

By saying Pros they also mean production studios - which can afford stuff like that, not individuals only. There is also a thing as campatibylity of software with other and they are talking about changing industry.
 
virus1 said:
so pros buy expensive software because they can? even though software that is just as good will work?
Click to expand...
Some people do equate higher price w/higher worth, and Avid is still top dog in the market, but people buy what they buy for many reasons. And you also have to keep hardware costs in mind. The $999 cost of FCP doesn't include a machine to run it on nor an SD and/or HD I/O card. There are aspects where Avid is superior and there are aspects where FCP is superior. I'd say generally speaking FCP is 85% of what Avid is. Which means either program could accommodate most users equally well. But there's still that edge Avid has. Plus, how much money do you already have invested in Avid? For example, the company I work at has 12 Avid suites all running off of shared storage. Switching over to FCP just isn't an option for a number of reasons.


so fcpXtreme will just be a normal fcp, faster, new ui, and a price that just tells prosumers to back off?
Click to expand...
FCP 6 and FC Extreme will be different apps aimed after different types of users. FCP 6 will obviously be be an update to FCP 5. FC Extreme will probably be a high end finishing/compositing NLE aimed at a piece of the video/film market that Apple hasn't gone after yet.


Lethal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back