Is Apple still serious about the professional market?

[CCK]

25 years ago I was a pro photographer, I’d spend days doing pinregistered rubylith cut outs for layered photos which takes minutes now. I would have loved to have gotten into film back then, but the cost and the limited market made the prospects of being a filmmaker unapealing at best..

Now for around 10k I have almost no limitations as to what I can do for a fraction of the cost and even a smaller fraction of the time of 25 years ago.

Sure I have some issues with the limited opions that offers, but having the ability to be a viable filmmaker for what even I consider to be peanuts in the scheme of things, is IMO amazing.

Just adding this to give a bit of a different perspective.

 

[nanofrog]

FCP is a pro level app, IMO, but the price point put it in the prosumer market first. It gained market share and popularity there and when people/companies using $60k Avids saw that a $1k app could do 90% of what they needed that's when FCP really started moving upstream. Apple, because they use hardware sales to subsidize their software, has really been able to push the market into offering better, less expensive options which means the end user is getting access to quality tools at a price point that would've been unbelievable just 5 or 6 years ago.

It seems to offer a lot of bang-for-the-buck. But it also seems that it's not totally equivalent to other offerings (from a technical POV, not considering cost).

I presume that for most, it's fine, or at worst, can be an acceptable compromise. For that last 10% of additional capabilities though, there's surely those that truly do require it, and are forced to fork over the additional cash to get it. Not that they like it, but as there's no choice, they have to budget the funds for the software that gets the job done.

That's how I see workstation use, as it's the real performance users that need them, and have to fork over substantial funds for single license applications. Even more than server licencing per system (not necessarily total software purchase amount, given the quantities involved).

 

[Nostromo]

I get cranky whenever I read "imacs are for photoshop creative types" because I'm one of them who owns an expensive, hardware calibrated LCD, and doesn't want/need a shinebox imac.

Sure the CPU is powerful enough for what I do but there are still major drawbacks:

1. No RAID options
2. No 2nd Scratch Disk
3. Cannot open up without voiding warranty
4. Mirror like shine that I can't "get used to" or "stop noticing"

That said I run a business so I deduct my hardware/software over time so it isn't a big deal but I would love for official gfx card upgrades that aren't marked up 1500% of actual retail value.

Absolutely agree.

You can't do serious photo editing on one of the mirror iMacs.

Same goes for the latest "cinema" displays.

Only option is a Mac Pro and a good monitor by the likes of NEC or Eizo.

 

[toke lahti]

Not every company relies on hardware sales to subsidize their software development like Apple does.

Sure about subsidizing? Their annual income from software is over two billions...
...which is about 1/7 of Macs...

 

[LethalWolfe]

I presume that for most, it's fine, or at worst, can be an acceptable compromise. For that last 10% of additional capabilities though, there's surely those that truly do require it, and are forced to fork over the additional cash to get it. Not that they like it, but as there's no choice, they have to budget the funds for the software that gets the job done.

There are certainly productions that need that last 10% and that's where you'll typically find Avid's products.

Sure about subsidizing? Their annual income from software is over two billions...

Of course I don't have any official documentation to go off of but Apple's typical MO is to buy expensive apps, rebrand them and sell them cheap. Shake, DVD SP, LiveType, Logic, Final Cut Server, Color, etc., were all like this. For example, the first thing Apple did w/Shake ($10k before Apple) was kill the Windows version and drop the price but they always kept the Mac version ($3k) below what the Linux and Irix versions cost ($5k). W/in only a few years the Apple version dropped to $500 while the other versions remained at the same price. The most recent example is Color. Color used to be called Final Touch and retailed for $25k. After Apple bought it they rolled it into FCS at no extra charge.

It's not just w/the ProApps either. iLife is inexpensive for what you get, the iTunes store was designed to be a loss leader to sell iPods, etc.,. Everything Apple does software-wise is w/the goal of selling hardware.


Lethal

 

[nanofrog]

...the iTunes store was designed to be a loss leader to sell iPods,...

That may have been the case when it was first introduced, but they knew it had the potential for generating more income per user than the actual iPod. Looking at more recent information, it's proven to be rather profitable.

 

[LethalWolfe]

That may have been the case when it was first introduced, but they knew it had the potential for generating more income per user than the actual iPod. Looking at more recent information, it's proven to be rather profitable.

That profit is gravy though since the goal was just break even and sell iPods (and later iPhones and iPads).


Lethal

 

[kernkraft]

That may have been the case when it was first introduced, but they knew it had the potential for generating more income per user than the actual iPod. Looking at more recent information, it's proven to be rather profitable.

The iTunes Store might have been an accidental success, but after all, it doesn't matter. With so much cash reserve and a stable flow of revenue, Apple will probably have a few accidental successes and a few flops too. That's life, but it only happens to companies that are willing to do things.

The biggest worry about Apple is that it ignores the areas, where lucky accidents might happen, whilst it favours those routes that makes it just like another large corporation with a few cash cows.

 

[nanofrog]

That profit is gravy though since the goal was just break even and sell iPods (and later iPhones and iPads).

It may have had to start as a loss leader to attract the customers, but they knew it would be profitable (goes back to the initial idea of the iPod, well before Apple ever thought of it; back in the '70's, though at the time, the "store" was a physical store where a user took their player to have songs uploaded). I presume Apple was also at the mercy of the music industry at the time, as the clout hadn't yet been created (sales volume was theory, not proven).

The iTunes Store might have been an accidental success, but after all, it doesn't matter. With so much cash reserve and a stable flow of revenue, Apple will probably have a few accidental successes and a few flops too. That's life, but it only happens to companies that are willing to do things.

The biggest worry about Apple is that it ignores the areas, where lucky accidents might happen, whilst it favours those routes that makes it just like another large corporation with a few cash cows.

Apple's no different than other companies; they want as much $$$ as they can get their hands on, and it's typical of corporations to "play it safe, and follow the herd" rather than do anything particularly unique (especially when it requires a significant investment). Willingness increases as the cost decreases. And truly new products typically take a significant R&D to create.

 

[LethalWolfe]

It may have had to start as a loss leader to attract the customers, but they knew it would be profitable (goes back to the initial idea of the iPod, well before Apple ever thought of it; back in the '70's, though at the time, the "store" was a physical store where a user took their player to have songs uploaded). I presume Apple was also at the mercy of the music industry at the time, as the clout hadn't yet been created (sales volume was theory, not proven).

Going by what Jobs said when the iTMS was launched I don't think the main goal of it was ever to be a money maker. Sure, no one is going to complain if it turned into one but the primary goal was, and is, to sell iPods. Just like the expansion of the iTunes store into apps, movies, books, etc., is to sell other Apple devices. It's the same reason why Apple doesn't make OSX or the ProApps cross platform. The goal of the software is to give people a compelling reason to buy the hardware.

Jobs talking about the iTMS:

"We would like to break even/make a little bit of money but it's not a money maker," he said, candidly.

So now we have it on record: the music store is a loss leader. Jobs said Apple would pay its dues to the RIAA, then seek to make money where it could, from its line of hardware accessories. When the conversation turned to rivals such as eTunes and Napster, Jobs said: "They don't make iPods, so they don't have a related business where they do [make money]".

Lethal

 

[nanofrog]

Going by what Jobs said when the iTMS was launched I don't think the main goal of it was ever to be a money maker. Sure, no one is going to complain if it turned into one but the primary goal was, and is, to sell iPods. Just like the expansion of the iTunes store into apps, movies, books, etc., is to sell other Apple devices. It's the same reason why Apple doesn't make OSX or the ProApps cross platform. The goal of the software is to give people a compelling reason to buy the hardware.

Jobs talking about the iTMS:

It was reasonable back in 2003. But I do think they had at least an idea that it could be profitable (omitted it's mention from Jobs in the conversation IMO), once it had been proven to push sales of music (music lables couldn't care about the brand of music player, only if they're getting paid).

Now it made sense to offer the iTunes site when the iPods released (and still does), otherwise there's no reason for buyers to choose Apple over other units, if their music had to be obtained from other sources. They do compliment each other, and help drive one another's sales.

At that time, the music industry were holding all the cards as it were, but now things have changed, as downloads outsell physical media. Now they depend on places like the iTunes store to get their product out to the masses.

We see this similarly, but I really do think that Apple had an expectation that the iTunes store would be a profitable portion of their business at some point, though not initially. But it wasn't mentioned at the time the article was written is all (Apple keeping things secret, which isn't unusual for them... ).

 

[LethalWolfe]

It was reasonable back in 2003. But I do think they had at least an idea that it could be profitable (omitted it's mention from Jobs in the conversation IMO), once it had been proven to push sales of music (music lables couldn't care about the brand of music player, only if they're getting paid).

Okay, first one to see Steve Jobs next has to ask him about this.

At that time, the music industry were holding all the cards as it were, but now things have changed, as downloads outsell physical media. Now they depend on places like the iTunes store to get their product out to the masses.

Download sales haven't outpaced physical sales yet in total number. Physical sales keep dropping and downloads keep going up, but even they look like they are slowing down (or at least they did last year).
Link:

Album sales fell to fell to 373.9 million units, a 12.7% decline from 2008. Total sales fell a whopping 52% since 2000. CDs still account for almost 80 percent of all album purchases.

Paid online song downloads continued to grow, but at a pace that was too slow to make up for lost CD sales.

1.16 billion individual songs were purchased digitally, an increase of 89 million units, or 8.3%, from 2008. That represents a significant slowdown in digital-sales growth. In 2008, sales of digital songs increased by 226 million, or 27% over the previous year. Digital downloads now account for 40% of music purchases.Album sales fell to fell to 373.9 million units, a 12.7% decline from 2008. Total sales fell a whopping 52% since 2000. CDs still account for almost 80 percent of all album purchases.

Paid online song downloads continued to grow, but at a pace that was too slow to make up for lost CD sales.

1.16 billion individual songs were purchased digitally, an increase of 89 million units, or 8.3%, from 2008. That represents a significant slowdown in digital-sales growth. In 2008, sales of digital songs increased by 226 million, or 27% over the previous year. Digital downloads now account for 40% of music purchases.

Lethal

 

[toke lahti]

Of course I don't have any official documentation to go off of but Apple's typical MO is to buy expensive apps, rebrand them and sell them cheap. Shake, DVD SP, LiveType, Logic, Final Cut Server, Color, etc., were all like this. For example, the first thing Apple did w/Shake ($10k before Apple) was kill the Windows version and drop the price but they always kept the Mac version ($3k) below what the Linux and Irix versions cost ($5k). W/in only a few years the Apple version dropped to $500 while the other versions remained at the same price. The most recent example is Color. Color used to be called Final Touch and retailed for $25k. After Apple bought it they rolled it into FCS at no extra charge.

It's not just w/the ProApps either. iLife is inexpensive for what you get, the iTunes store was designed to be a loss leader to sell iPods, etc.,. Everything Apple does software-wise is w/the goal of selling hardware.

Software business is tricky. Lower price does not equal less profits.
If Apple buys a software, lowers it's price to 1/10 and sells it 20 times more than before, they are making good business.

 

[nanofrog]

Okay, first one to see Steve Jobs next has to ask him about this.

You're on.

Download sales haven't outpaced physical sales yet in total number.

I went back and looked, and what I saw was International (i.e. China, India, Korea,...) have outpaced physical media. But it apparently isn't global yet.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Software business is tricky. Lower price does not equal less profits.
If Apple buys a software, lowers it's price to 1/10 and sells it 20 times more than before, they are making good business.

First off do you have proof that that is happening or is that statement merely hypothetical? Second, the market for very niche products like Shake isn't going to explode exponentially just because the price is reduced and, finally, some products (like LiveType and Color) were included in a software bundle at no extra charge (i.e. they are basically given away for free).

EDIT: I agree that lower prices, on anything not just software, do not necessarily equal less profit, but lower prices do not necessarily trigger a big enough, long lasting enough increase in sales volume to make up the difference. Also, you still have to price each unit high enough to be profitable because if you perpetually sell at a loss you will never generate a profit on that product no matter how many units you sell.


Lethal

 

[toke lahti]

First off do you have proof that that is happening or is that statement merely hypothetical? Second, the market for very niche products like Shake isn't going to explode exponentially just because the price is reduced and, finally, some products (like LiveType and Color) were included in a software bundle at no extra charge (i.e. they are basically given away for free).

Nope,
you'd have to be working in Apple's financial department to have any real proof.
And of course it isn't easy to estimate the profit you get from a piece of bundled software.
But new version of one component of FCS or totally new component can trigger the sale of 100,000 copies. If average price is $400, they could use 40 million to r&d and still get even. I guess that FCS team isn't that big, so then Apple would make profit with FCS.

EDIT: I agree that lower prices, on anything not just software, do not necessarily equal less profit, but lower prices do not necessarily trigger a big enough, long lasting enough increase in sales volume to make up the difference. Also, you still have to price each unit high enough to be profitable because if you perpetually sell at a loss you will never generate a profit on that product no matter how many units you sell.

Is software, manufacturing costs of a sellable unit (=copy) might not cost anything.
So you can make profits with very low price if volume is big. App store is good example of this.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Nope,
you'd have to be working in Apple's financial department to have any real proof.
And of course it isn't easy to estimate the profit you get from a piece of bundled software.
But new version of one component of FCS or totally new component can trigger the sale of 100,000 copies. If average price is $400, they could use 40 million to r&d and still get even. I guess that FCS team isn't that big, so then Apple would make profit with FCS.

Again, baseless speculation w/hypothetical numbers that, of course, support your opinions. I could just as easily say that Apple spends 800 million on R&D and support of the ProApps. The best we can do is look at the trends in Apple's history, the demographic they are selling to, the competition and try to derive something from that. While being in the post production industry for the past 10yrs doesn't make me an expert on business and economics I try to pay attention to what's going on around me and feel I can talk about it in an education fashion. What Apple is currently offering for $999 can't be matched for less than $40k, IMO, and, also IMO, Apple doesn't see the sales volume from Final Cut purchases and upgrades to offset all of that. It took about 8 years or so for FCP to hit the 1 million user mark (not including pirated copies) so thinking that adding a new feature like Color will trigger 100k more sales than if that feature wasn't added is very optimistic, IMO. The ProApps, IMO, hover around the break even point at best. Apple pays the rent selling hardware and uses their software development as a means towards that goal.

Just dropping the price won't necessarily expand the user base and I think this is what they found out w/Shake. When the majority of your user base sees Final Cut Studio (~$1k) as expensive they sure as heck aren't going to bite on a product like Shake that they see as a $500 one-trick pony (even if it does it's trick better than almost anything else out there). It doesn't matter that it went from $10k to $500. All they see is that Final Cut Studio costs twice as much and offers a ton more functionally. The fact that Final Cut Studio is priced way, way, w-a-y below the going rate for what it offers is apparently irrelevant to them.

I think that's why Apple bundled Color w/FCS instead of selling it as a stand alone app. They are hopping the added value of Color will get more people to buy FCS, but the niche for Color is probably smaller than the niche for Shake. How many more copies of Final Cut Studio will have to be sold to make up for the 'free' addition of an otherwise $25k app? And most new users of Color, people that didn't really do video before the advent of DV or HDV, are put off by the fact that you need to invest in $3k, at minimum, worth additional hardware to even make using Color worthwhile. This is in stark contrast to the more experienced pros that see the cost of FCP as a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of their gear, or compared to the gear they used to use. What I think Apple is hopping to do is make desktop color correction as common as they helped make desktop publishing, desktop video editing, and desktop DVD authoring. A big hurdle though is that desktop color correction, like I mentioned before, requires additional hardware that currently costs thousands of dollars, but hopefully that will come down if the makers of said hardware see an increased demand. Classic chicken/egg problem.

So you can make profits with very low price if volume is big. App store is good example of this.

Agreed, but the ProApps have a significantly higher development cost and a significantly smaller audience than a $0.99 widget or game from the App store geared for mass appeal. Even w/in the App store the more niche, and complex the app the higher the cost. Productivity and professional apps can easily be $20-$30 or up. Sure, they could drop their price to $0.99 but is there really a big, pent-up market for storyboard or director's viewfinder software? Even Apple is trying to address the 'race to the bottom' problem the App store has.

Along the same lines, why doesn't Apple make all of it's software cross platform? There are obviously a ton more Windows boxes out there than Mac boxes. Why is iTunes cross platform? Is the difference that FCP for Windows won't sell Mac hardware but iTunes for Windows will? Why did Apple quickly kill the Windows version of Shake and discount the Mac price much lower than the Linux price?


Lethal

 

[toke lahti]

It took about 8 years or so for FCP to hit the 1 million user mark (not including pirated copies) so thinking that adding a new feature like Color will trigger 100k more sales than if that feature wasn't added is very optimistic, IMO. The ProApps, IMO, hover around the break even point at best.

My experience is that 33%-50% FCS users upgraded to FCS3 (though some from FCS1) even when there was nothing groundbeaking to their workflow. ProApps have so wide user base that they are selling tens of millions for each release. Could be a lot profit in addition to r&d expenses.

Just dropping the price won't necessarily expand the user base and I think this is what they found out w/Shake.

Dropping Shake had nothing to do with its price. It was for high-end productions, while FCS is for all-around.

I think that's why Apple bundled Color w/FCS instead of selling it as a stand alone app. They are hopping the added value of Color will get more people to buy FCS, but the niche for Color is probably smaller than the niche for Shake. How many more copies of Final Cut Studio will have to be sold to make up for the 'free' addition of an otherwise $25k app? And most new users of Color, people that didn't really do video before the advent of DV or HDV, are put off by the fact that you need to invest in $3k, at minimum, worth additional hardware to even make using Color worthwhile. This is in stark contrast to the more experienced pros that see the cost of FCP as a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of their gear, or compared to the gear they used to use. What I think Apple is hopping to do is make desktop color correction as common as they helped make desktop publishing, desktop video editing, and desktop DVD authoring. A big hurdle though is that desktop color correction, like I mentioned before, requires additional hardware that currently costs thousands of dollars, but hopefully that will come down if the makers of said hardware see an increased demand.

Color is much less niche than Shake was. Almost all video is color corrected these days. If they make Color's GUI friendlier and rewrite the code so it benefits new tech like grandCentral and openCL it won't need so expensive hardware anymore.

Along the same lines, why doesn't Apple make all of it's software cross platform? There are obviously a ton more Windows boxes out there than Mac boxes. Why is iTunes cross platform? Is the difference that FCP for Windows won't sell Mac hardware but iTunes for Windows will? Why did Apple quickly kill the Windows version of Shake and discount the Mac price much lower than the Linux price?

I'm not saying that Apple doesn't sell proApps to sell more hardware.
All I'm saying, is that with today's wide user base of proApps, I think Apple is making profit out of them. Or at least will be in near future. So the decade of subsidizing is over...
Or do they sell OS upgrades & iLife for over 2 billion a year?
Strange that their income from software is pretty steady and does not peak when OS upgrade or new version of iLife is released...

 

[LethalWolfe]

My experience is that 33%-50% FCS users upgraded to FCS3 (though some from FCS1) even when there was nothing groundbeaking to their workflow. ProApps have so wide user base that they are selling tens of millions for each release. Could be a lot profit in addition to r&d expenses.

Your experience based on...? How can Apple be selling tens of millions for each release when Apple themselves said they just reached the 1 million user mark for FCP 2-3 years ago? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

Dropping Shake had nothing to do with its price. It was for high-end productions, while FCS is for all-around.

Which was part of my point. Apple discounted Shake from $10k to $500 and still couldn't get their core demographic to pick up on it because they didn't need it. The massive price drop did not result in an equally massive increase in the volume of sales.

Color is much less niche than Shake was. Almost all video is color corrected these days.

There is a difference between color correcting using the built in tools of an NLE and using an app like Color. Most of the color correcting that goes on in the video world, and especially in the areas that FCP dominates, happens in the NLE and not in with a speciality product like Color, Pablo, or DaVinci. Even if we limit our discussion to higher end color grading, like what Color would be used for, and compare that to high end compositing, like what Shake would be used for, I still think Shake would be more wide spread merely because you can have teams of VFX artists all using copies of Shake and all working on different parts of the film simultaneously where as you typically only have one colorist. Specialized color correction apps, like Color, still occupy a pretty small niche in the video world.

If they make Color's GUI friendlier and rewrite the code so it benefits new tech like grandCentral and openCL it won't need so expensive hardware anymore.

You still need a video I/O card, a broadcast quality monitor and, if you use Color regularly, a hardware control surface. A low end Decklink card will run you about $300, a quality broadcast monitor will start at $2k-2.5k, and a low end hardware control panel will be $1500.

I'm not saying that Apple doesn't sell proApps to sell more hardware.
All I'm saying, is that with today's wide user base of proApps, I think Apple is making profit out of them. Or at least will be in near future. So the decade of subsidizing is over...
Or do they sell OS upgrades & iLife for over 2 billion a year?
Strange that their income from software is pretty steady and does not peak when OS upgrade or new version of iLife is released...

So if Apple stopped selling all their hardware today you think they could still continue the business model of buying other companies and giving away expensive software for free? What do you think all the other companies are doing wrong since they are not able to come near Apple's price points? Do you have a link for the over 2 billion in net software sales? The only thing I was able to find was in Apple's SEC filings on page 61 where it listed "Software, service and other net sales" (which includes sales of Apple-branded operating system and application software, third-party software, AppleCare and Internet services) generated 2.411 billion in net sales for fiscal year 2009. I didn't find anything that listed just sales of Apple's first party software, but I didn't perform an exhaustive search.


Lethal

 

[toke lahti]

Your experience based on...?

Places and people I know. Maybe about 50 installations...

How can Apple be selling tens of millions for each release when Apple themselves said they just reached the 1 million user mark for FCP 2-3 years ago?

I meant selling a release for tens of millions of dollars, not copies.

Even if we limit our discussion to higher end color grading, like what Color would be used for, and compare that to high end compositing, like what Shake would be used for, I still think Shake would be more wide spread merely because you can have teams of VFX artists all using copies of Shake and all working on different parts of the film simultaneously where as you typically only have one colorist. Specialized color correction apps, like Color, still occupy a pretty small niche in the video world.

Many people that I know use Color whenever they can with their schedule.
That means big portion of people who use FCS. To my experience bigger than people who use Motion.
Shake is in totally different ball game. It's for productions that cost 6 digits or more. Productions where you can use dozens of work hours to few seconds of footage. Very small portion of video business in all.
That's why it didn't fit to FCS and didn't get wide enough user base.

You still need a video I/O card, a broadcast quality monitor and, if you use Color regularly, a hardware control surface. A low end Decklink card will run you about $300, a quality broadcast monitor will start at $2k-2.5k, and a low end hardware control panel will be $1500.

You don't need any of that to use Color. You can profile any good computer monitor to rec709 and use it with your gpu.
There are now regular quality IPS monitors that cover the whole 709 space.
Control panel pays itself back very soon if you need to use it many days per month.

So if Apple stopped selling all their hardware today you think they could still continue the business model of buying other companies and giving away expensive software for free? What do you think all the other companies are doing wrong since they are not able to come near Apple's price points? Do you have a link for the over 2 billion in net software sales?

Ok, maybe software sales are way under 2 billion. But even if they are only 1, they are getting money from proApps. Question is how much they spend r&d? Looking at FCS development not quite much...
I also guess that money they spent for buying proApps' companies has been relatively small.
And of course nobody would buy Apple's proApps if Apple stopped selling hardware for them. But Apple might just ditch both...

 

[LethalWolfe]

Shake is in totally different ball game. It's for productions that cost 6 digits or more. Productions where you can use dozens of work hours to few seconds of footage. Very small portion of video business in all.
That's why it didn't fit to FCS and didn't get wide enough user base.

It's not really a different ball game at all, IMO. The products that Color is designed to compete against cost high 5 or low 6 figures by themselves. Color and Shake are both high end tools that go well beyond the basic color correction and compositing options offered w/in FCP. The big difference is that Apple bundled Color at no extra charge where as they always sold Shake as a stand alone product. If Shake came bundled at no extra charge I'm sure people would find reasons to use it and if Color cost an $1k, or whatever, I'm sure a lot fewer FCS owners would be experimenting with it.

You don't need any of that to use Color. You can profile any good computer monitor to rec709 and use it with your gpu.
There are now regular quality IPS monitors that cover the whole 709 space.
Control panel pays itself back very soon if you need to use it many days per month.

If you want to know what is happening to your footage you really do need an I/O card, a broadcast monitor and probably outboard scopes as well (although some people find the software scopes to be okay and some broadcast monitors come w/scopes built in). First, FCP and Color display only proxy quality video images. Even the documentation for FCP's Digital Cinema Desktop mode states it is for preview purposes only. Second, what are you using to feed the monitor? The DVI port of your gfx card which is outputting a dithered, RGB signal at a computer, not a video, frame rate? That's a far cry from a standard video signal and a reason why the Matrox MXO exists. Third, ever run into the problem of a video's gamma being displayed differently depending on which app you are in? Finally, computer monitors and broadcast monitors aren't the same on the inside just because they look the same on the outside. The way the signal is processed and displayed is not the same. The only computer that I've read about that some people think can be a good computer monitor for color correction is the HP DreamColor and that's only if a strict workflow is followed to insure proper processing and display of the video signal.


Lethal

 

[TheStrudel]

Lethal's right. Tons of monitors cover Rec 709 - sRGB - but almost no video formats are RGB, and the conversion from their colorspaces to the display output on your monitor causes a ton of problems. That's just one of the many, many issues with monitoring.

Now, that said, you can do "good enough" monitoring for anything that's going, say, on YouTube with an IPS panel.

People who actually need more already have the budget for the equipment.

Color is overkill for the majority of people - who haven't even gotten the most out of Final Cut's 3-way color corrector filter.

 

[reel2reel]

You don't need any of that to use Color. You can profile any good computer monitor to rec709 and use it with your gpu.
There are now regular quality IPS monitors that cover the whole 709 space.
Control panel pays itself back very soon if you need to use it many days per month

This sounds sensible in theory but it's far from true. If you're going to broadcast you absolutely need a proper monitor and an I/O. How do you capture and lay off to an HDCAM/DigiBeta deck? USB? How do you check for interlacing problems? Not everything is shot progressive. I use two monitors to colour-correct, one Pro TVLogic and a crappy Samsung LCD (to give me a consumer monitor reference). This, to me, is the absolute minimum for monitoring.

 

[toke lahti]

If Shake came bundled at no extra charge I'm sure people would find reasons to use it...

Hmm,
maybe, I have used Shake for very little, but I liked it and wished that I would have more time to play with it.
But why Apple doesn't bundle it with FCS? Too many support calls?

First, FCP and Color display only proxy quality video images. Even the documentation for FCP's Digital Cinema Desktop mode states it is for preview purposes only.

Okay, I have been under impression that Color's DCD is "full quality".

Second, what are you using to feed the monitor? The DVI port of your gfx card which is outputting a dithered, RGB signal at a computer, not a video, frame rate? That's a far cry from a standard video signal and a reason why the Matrox MXO exists.

If I have calibrated and profiled computer monitor to look rec709, what's the difference in colors comparing to broadcast monitor, which should have color space of rec709?
I think tha MXO is for use with MBP or people who don't know color management. Adjustments for picture are pretty crude in that box and you still need internal LUT in monitor to avoid 8-bit bottleneck.
Frame rate with Color has never been issue for me, because my system won't playback all frames in real time anyway. That doesn't change colors though.

Third, ever run into the problem of a video's gamma being displayed differently depending on which app you are in?

Yep, I don't use those apps for color correction.

Finally, computer monitors and broadcast monitors aren't the same on the inside just because they look the same on the outside. The way the signal is processed and displayed is not the same.

But when you connect MXO (or Declink's box) to computer monitor, the magic happens and it turns to broadcast monitor?

The only computer that I've read about that some people think can be a good computer monitor for color correction is the HP DreamColor and that's only if a strict workflow is followed to insure proper processing and display of the video signal.

I've heard and seen that also Eizo, NEC & LaCie or whatever with internal LUT is pretty good.

 

[toke lahti]

How do you capture and lay off to an HDCAM/DigiBeta deck? USB? How do you check for interlacing problems?

I don't own film scanner or printer either. It's easier to grab a hard disk and go to a shop which have those big expensive machines than carry them back and forth to my workstation.
Checking interlacing is a problem, but I'm never gonna buy an interlaced monitor (=hd crt). I'll just check sd-converted and believe that nobody has interlaced hd screens anymore...