False. Avid Media Composer is by far the most popular professional editing system. I work in moving image industry. Many turn key high end systems are Windows based.
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.
Jobs Reportedly Says Final Cut Update 'Coming Early Next Year'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
False. Avid Media Composer is by far the most popular professional editing system. I work in moving image industry. Many turn key high end systems are Windows based.
That is really great news. Yes, it could be a bit more polished and brushed up, but after playing around with Adobe Premier for a while I have to say I still like FCP better.
Can't wait for the new version - bring it on
Can't wait for the new version - bring it on
I think Apple will deliver a solid update to Final Cut Pro. I think this lag was caused a bit by the transition to 64-bit and the fact that Apple didn't manage to get Quicktime X completed in time. I think the next version of FCP will be 64-bit and will come with a new version of Quicktime X which will finally put Quicktime 7 to rest.
I'd assume the 'other' category would be a mix of Lightworks, Media100, Premiere Pro and maybe even Sony Vegas. Mizzurah posted a link to the most recent version of the survey I was trying to recall and it has Avid at 76%, FCP at just under 20% and 'other' w/just under 5%.
Lethal
Good I had to do some editing in Media100 once and it was one of the most horrid experiences of my professional life.
Apple can string on the consumer market, holding back features which their competitors have had for years and take for granted, and when they finally add them, they're already out of date. Sprinkle on some 'magic' and consumers eat it up.
The Professional market use their tools to make money and drive their workflow. If a product/solution like FCS becomes uncompetitive, the customer will move on.
Apple probably know that they can't compete in this space, at least profitably. Both Shake and Xserve are gone. The Macpro on price/performance is really poor value. And whilst FCS is brilliant value, it never really leaps ahead in terms of added features or optimisation.
It's possible that Apple in 5 years time will be a purely consumer electronics company, with no 'computers' in the traditional sense in it's line up. If this bears out, Pro Applications and Hardware, don't really figure into that reality.
The Professional market use their tools to make money and drive their workflow. If a product/solution like FCS becomes uncompetitive, the customer will move on.
Apple probably know that they can't compete in this space, at least profitably. Both Shake and Xserve are gone. The Macpro on price/performance is really poor value. And whilst FCS is brilliant value, it never really leaps ahead in terms of added features or optimisation.
It's possible that Apple in 5 years time will be a purely consumer electronics company, with no 'computers' in the traditional sense in it's line up. If this bears out, Pro Applications and Hardware, don't really figure into that reality.
And when FCS4 comes out it will be a year ahead of CS5. What's your point?
Please... without pro apps there is no reason for businesses to have pricey Mac setups. There is no need to have a mac if you're just using Microsoft Office and Email
We've been using Mac Pros as servers for years now... it has more function than the Xserve but is just not rack mountable. No big deal. And who used Shake that its loss makes an impact? Apple could cut Motion and I don't think many would care.
I agree even though I loathe Avid and its Technical support
Were stuck with Avid and we do what we can without their support.
We also use FCP but presently at a lower stage in the production pipeline.
However, our RED One delivery is trickling in (worse delivery ever) and now in the process of testing a the Red Rocket in a Mac Pro loaded with FCP3.
Hope it all goes well.
I used to use FCP I found it to be overly complicated to do simple tasks. I manly focus on print design so I have not used it for several years.
Recently I have had to make several projects and I found that Premier CS5 was actually a very strong video editing package. It runs smooth, has a clean Adobe interface and everything worked out great.
While I like CS5, I absolutely hate Adobe due to their ultra crappy Indian based tech support. If you buy $10,000 worth of software from a company you don't expect them to charge you $39 just to talk to a person who is getting paid $1 per hour to read a script.
Recently I have had to make several projects and I found that Premier CS5 was actually a very strong video editing package. It runs smooth, has a clean Adobe interface and everything worked out great.
While I like CS5, I absolutely hate Adobe due to their ultra crappy Indian based tech support. If you buy $10,000 worth of software from a company you don't expect them to charge you $39 just to talk to a person who is getting paid $1 per hour to read a script.
The Adobe interface is certainly nice, but Premiere does so many weird things that I can't stand it for everything it does differently and right (try duplicating a sequence, editing title tool text, and NOT have it be destructive in your older sequences). The interface is so similar to FCP now that it certainly helps ease users into it. Where with Avid I think there is a bit of a learning curve to anyone looking to switch or have to start using that software in a pinch as a freelancer.
While I love the 'no rendering' aspect of using the complete CS package, it is only practical on personal projects. Anything where I am collaborating with clients and additional graphic designers, I can't have them be updating AE comps within my sequence through dynamic link while I'm working on other things in editorial. Just not practical.
I think his point was that if the next version of FCP is only playing 'catch up' to CS5 and MC5 it will quickly be eclipsed by the next iterations of those programs (especially if FCP stays on a two year product cycle). FCP needs to leap frog CS5 and MC5 to remain competitive.
Just because it's not a big deal for you doesn't mean it's not a big deal for others. For example, our production technology guys are finally happy to be phasing out an old 30TB SAN that's taking up 3-4 times the space of the new 60TB SAN. Less space, less power, less cooling, less money to build and maintain for a bigger, better SAN. I can only imagine what they'd do if someone came in and said "Okay, we are replacing all your 1RU servers with Mac Pros".
As far as Shake goes, I'd say all the people doing higher end VFX work felt multiple stings from Apple. First was killing the Windows version. Second was keeping the price high for the Linux version while severely discounting the Mac version. Third was ceasing development of it in 2006 even though it was arguably best in class software. It's a testament to the guys at Nothing Real (the creators of Shake) that it was still viable for so many years after Apple killed it (copies of Shake on eBay still go for, or near, full retail price). AFAIK Nuke has come in to fill the void left by Shake.
Lethal
The point being that nobody knows when, or if, Final Cut is being upgraded, or what the quality of it will be. One can hope it will be awesome. One can hope it will be out next month.
It's hard to plan purchases around what might come from Apple. Secrets may be great for building buzz around an iPhone. It sucks for planning software/hardware upgrade costs in business.
A different kind of pro market used software like Shake. There are still VFX classes being taught around it. It's just another example of why many people in my field think Apple really doesn't care about anything beyond iLife. They had an amazing product and rather than sell it off and cut their losses (which they can afford anyway), they just let it starve to death like an unfed bird in a cage.
The alternative now is to spend $4500 on nuke (add 17% VAT if you are in the EU! Ouch!!!).
I would be surprised if we saw a 64 bit fcp before Lion. Apples qtkit API, which is thie only QuickTime API that you can compile in 64 bit, is really, REALLY primitive. Its going to require massive updating befor you would even think of running something like fcp with it. You cannot do anything more advanced than splice two videos together with it now. Hell even enumerating all th e codecs you can export to requires going down to 32 bits, and even the stuff that does compile in 64 bit requires a separate 32 bit process to actually do the work. T e sad thing is that apple has had plenty of time to update this API but they have essentially done nothing with it, which shows you how much they care about the pro users nowadays
Just one example but Transformers 2 was cut on FCP, and that's a 250mil movie, hardly an independent one
No one said FCP is only used on indie movies.Just one example but Transformers 2 was cut on FCP, and that's a 250mil movie, hardly an independent one
Lethal
Shake was pretty much the standard compositing tool for big budget movies when Apple discontinued it. So, a lot of people were using it, funnily, a lot of people still using it, despite being discontinued, it's still a solid product.
I would be surprised if we saw a 64 bit fcp before Lion. Apples qtkit API, which is thie only QuickTime API that you can compile in 64 bit, is really, REALLY primitive. Its going to require massive updating befor you would even think of running something like fcp with it. You cannot do anything more advanced than splice two videos together with it now. Hell even enumerating all th e codecs you can export to requires going down to 32 bits, and even the stuff that does compile in 64 bit requires a separate 32 bit process to actually do the work. T e sad thing is that apple has had plenty of time to update this API but they have essentially done nothing with it, which shows you how much they care about the pro users nowadays
Or they did a lot of stuff with it already, just not showing it yet. Since the current release of FCP does not use QTX, they don't need to release the updated API before the next gen FCP. I really doubt Apple just shelved the whole QTX after doing a rewrite for SL, they must have been iterating it since then.
And about Premiere being better than FCP, I'm not an expert on this but aren't the Apple ProRes codecs the main reason people go with FCP? And Premiere does not offer anything close in terms of codecs.
Missing the point...
Jobs (and most of us here) are missing the point. It's not about getting a release window for the next iteration of FCP, it's about running a business and the need to plan according to a supplier's roadmap. This is one area where Apple totally blows: without awareness of basic features, likely timelines, and a clear product commitment, it's nerve wracking and borderline irresponsible to use Apple products in the backbone of any business.
Cue the apologists, but I've been in the driver's seat on this and for serious professionals it is an abuse that Apple should stop. If a product is claimed to be for professional use, then give the professionals the information they need to plan and run their business. If you don't get why this matters, I'm going to guess you've never run a business where you had the responsibility for people's livelihood on your shoulders.
Jobs (and most of us here) are missing the point. It's not about getting a release window for the next iteration of FCP, it's about running a business and the need to plan according to a supplier's roadmap. This is one area where Apple totally blows: without awareness of basic features, likely timelines, and a clear product commitment, it's nerve wracking and borderline irresponsible to use Apple products in the backbone of any business.
Cue the apologists, but I've been in the driver's seat on this and for serious professionals it is an abuse that Apple should stop. If a product is claimed to be for professional use, then give the professionals the information they need to plan and run their business. If you don't get why this matters, I'm going to guess you've never run a business where you had the responsibility for people's livelihood on your shoulders.
X
You don't need to know a year ahead of Apple's product launch dates to run your business. There are lots of professionals using 5 year old software to get their millions of dollars of worth work done. I like software upgrades as much as the next guy, but just because it's cool to install new stuff, not that I'll be able to do much more than I can do right now with the new software.
You don't need to know a year ahead of Apple's product launch dates to run your business. There are lots of professionals using 5 year old software to get their millions of dollars of worth work done. I like software upgrades as much as the next guy, but just because it's cool to install new stuff, not that I'll be able to do much more than I can do right now with the new software.
Big business will turn over machines every 2 years wether they need it or not. They have to budget for new equipment so they need to know what is down the pipeline.
It's a bit long, but this is a good read about the state of FCP by Philip Hodgetts:
A very big reason people go w/FCP is because it can do a lot for very little money. If it was priced more in line with Avid Media Composer or Avid Adrenaline I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it wouldn't have become as popular. Apple's typical method of operation when it comes to the ProApps is buy existing software, rebrand it and drop the price dramatically. The most recent, and most radical example, is Apple Color. Apple took what was previously a $25,000 color grading application and tossed it into the Final Cut Suite at no extra charge.
ProRes has only be around since FCP 6 and is one of the few additional features that Apple can really hang its hat on. While Premiere doesn't have any first part codecs along the same lines as ProRes it is more flexible and open to third party codecs than FCP is. A very good, and very popular, 3rd party codec is CineForm.
Lethal
Yeah I know Apple's policy on low pricing to sell hardware and I think it's brilliant. I don't know why they drop the software after a while though, discontinuing Shake didn't make any sense.
I'll read the QT article.