Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

NAB Final Cut Supermeet Coverage

Avid Media Composer for $995

I received an email from Avid yesterday offering FCP owners an opportunity to buy Media Composer for $995. If I had the cash, I'd probably jump on it.
 
ipedro said:
I know this thread is probably full of pro video geeks so don't eat me alive here. What's the primary difference between FCP and Express aside from the fact that Final Cut Pro is packaged in a suite of applications?
Click to expand...

Final Cut express strips out a lot of features people won't need unless they are doing some pretty heavy lifting. I use Final Cut Pro (and have since 1.0) but for the type of editing I do here at work (small TV station) Final Cut Express would work just fine. I just use what they give me :cool:.

AKA Final Cut Express is what iMovie should be, but instead they super duper dumbed it down for the masses.
 
ipedro said:
I know this thread is probably full of pro video geeks so don't eat me alive here. What's the primary difference between FCP and Express aside from the fact that Final Cut Pro is packaged in a suite of applications?
Click to expand...

Pro takes more video formats. It has a few other tools, I think.

It's basically designed so that if you really are a hobbyist with an HDV camcorder you really won't notice a difference between the 2 since the extra things FCP has are things you'd never use anyway.
 
ipedro said:
I know this thread is probably full of pro video geeks so don't eat me alive here. What's the primary difference between FCP and Express aside from the fact that Final Cut Pro is packaged in a suite of applications?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure FCE doesn't support 24fps, which is kinda a problem for film editing, and an increasingly bigger problem for other work as 24fps gets used more. IIRC, it doesn't have stuff like the color scopes or audio mixer either. The main difference is the suite though.
 
CIA said:
Final Cut express strips out a lot of features people won't need unless they are doing some pretty heavy lifting. I use Final Cut Pro (and have since 1.0) but for the type of editing I do here at work (small TV station) Final Cut Express would work just fine. I just use what they give me :cool:.
Click to expand...

Small White Car said:
Pro takes more video formats. It has a few other tools, I think.

It's basically designed so that if you really are a hobbyist with an HDV camcorder you really won't notice a difference between the 2 since the extra things FCP has are things you'd never use anyway.
Click to expand...

J the Ninja said:
Pretty sure FCE doesn't support 24fps, which is kinda a problem for film editing, and an increasingly bigger problem for other work as 24fps gets used more. IIRC, it doesn't have stuff like the color scopes or audio mixer either. The main difference is the suite though.
Click to expand...

Thanks. It seems to be what I need. I'm a photographer who does the occasional video. I don't want to make video the main part of my business, just a complement. A $1000 suite is overkill. I'd be happy to pay $300 though for just Final Cut Pro or $200 for a new Final Cut Express. Fingers crossed. :)
 
I just finished reading the old thread, only to discover that there was a new story on MacRumors and a new thread... so here's my comments:

For context, I started cutting film back when I had two reels and a viewer in the middle... and I had to hand crank it to preview. Cutting involved a nice razor embedded in plastic and a splice was a fancy piece of tape with sprocket holes in it. I am a software developer and I've long lamented how early editing software has always been based on just replicating the film process electronically.

Then I started to meet the Video People. Video People are much of the industry- the editors for TV news, the editors for TV programs, the wedding photographers. Just about everbody but filmmakers, but also including a lot of the lower end film production support (eg: editing houses.) The Video People have been taught rules of thumb. They are not very technical. They know how it is "supposed" to work because that's what they learned in colllege or at their first jobs. They are all stuck in specific workflows and specific ways of doing things.

They output to tape because they cannot grasp the concept that tape became obsolete a decade ago (and the ones who can grasp it are stuck dealing with others who demand delivery and archive on tape.)

These are the same people who think that iMovie was a joke when it was reworked. I loved it. I was happy to see a tiny, little step forward in working with video. Apple thought just a smidgen different and people went crazy. Sure it had less features than the previous one-- but creativity was so unleashed that the minor hassle of working around those features not being built in was no big deal.

I think Apple is skating to where the puck is. Apple is going to release a Final Cut focused on the direction the industry is heading. If Apple does its job right, the Video People will be screaming their heads off. But the 20 year olds who don't know anything but "want to make movies" (and are more serious than those willing to limit themselves to iMovie) will take it and start cutting the next generation of indie features.

Maybe Apple will provide all the features the Video People are threatening to switch to Avid if they don't get (as if it is some sort of a hostage demand -- "I'm going to post to macrumors forums and threaten to switch to Avid! That will teach them!". I've met many people in many industries but the Video People are the most rigid, the least genuinely understanding of technology and the most fixated on rules of thumb and rigid perspectives about How Things Should Work. Seriously, computer illiterate grease monkies are more flexible and open to new technology, in my experience. The Video People think they are Pros (because hey earn a salary) and therefore, anything that causes them to stretch or adjust or re-think the processes they use is "bad". The idea that something might be more efficient or produce a better quality result seems unfathomable.

If Apple has spent the last several years working on something signficant (which is the implication of the claims Apple has "abandoned their pro products") then the Video People are going to be screaming bloody murder in a couple hours. I look forward to it.

(PS- I didn't call anyone in this thread a Video People. You can choose to take offense if you wish, but I'm talking about people I've met and had to work with in the industry, not posters to this thread whom I do not know personally.)
 
Cougarcat said:
From what I understand that was Steve Job's doing. The guy made a separate simple movie app, and Jobs liked it so much he decided to make it the new iMovie.
Click to expand...

I remember the keynote... He was on vacation and wanted a super easy way to edit his home movie. So he whipped up this "new" program to do it. Steve liked it and it became iMovie. And in the process threw 50 years of video editing out the window. Great if you've never edited before, but if you want to edit, iMovie isn't an option. If you want to slap together a super quick video, it's almost faster to cut and paste clips in a QT7 window then use iMovie now.
Speaking of that. I really hope they fix QTX today also, at least bring it up to par with QT7 in features.
 
Small White Car said:
Pro takes more video formats. It has a few other tools, I think.

It's basically designed so that if you really are a hobbyist with an HDV camcorder you really won't notice a difference between the 2 since the extra things FCP has are things you'd never use anyway.
Click to expand...

Good summery. Now they just need to update FCE! It's been what? 4 years?
 
J the Ninja said:
Pretty sure FCE doesn't support 24fps, which is kinda a problem for film editing, and an increasingly bigger problem for other work as 24fps gets used more. IIRC, it doesn't have stuff like the color scopes or audio mixer either. The main difference is the suite though.
Click to expand...

Just read something today to the effect that Peter Jackson is following James Cameron's lead and shooting 48fps on the "Hobbit"; gambling that enough digital theaters will upgrade to 48fps by the time the "film" arrives in a couple of years time. Guess that is the beginning of the end of the "film" look for at least action movies.
 
econgeek said:
They output to tape because they cannot grasp the concept that tape became obsolete a decade ago (and the ones who can grasp it are stuck dealing with others who demand delivery and archive on tape.)
Click to expand...

I hate getting tape as delivery, but man I love it for archive. Tape sticks around while hard drives and burned data DVD's fail all the time.


What? Am I supposed to move over 6TB of archived video packages into the cloud? Hows that gonna work?
 
I just miss iMovie HD... Often, even FCE is too cumbersome for my needs, while the newer versions of iMovie are not as streamlined as the older releases were.

Anywho, this is great news if it's indeed true. I work with a few video / film producers, and they are very hopeful a new FCP is announced. Apple has neglected their professional user base for a few years now, so it'd be great to see them leapfrog the competition.
 
CIA said:
And in the process threw 50 years of video editing out the window.
Click to expand...

50 years ago there were no computers. If you want to go back to the moviola, nobody is stopping you. You seem to think that sticking with outdated metaphors is inherently somehow better.

Great if you've never edited before, but if you want to edit, iMovie isn't an option. If you want to slap together a super quick video, it's almost faster to cut and paste clips in a QT7 window then use iMovie now.
Click to expand...

You may have never used iMovie but it is foolish to assume that none of us have. That idea that you can't edit in iMovie is nonsense, and absurd on the face of it.
 
CIA said:
I remember the keynote... He was on vacation and wanted a super easy way to edit his home movie. So he whipped up this "new" program to do it. Steve liked it and it became iMovie. And in the process threw 50 years of video editing out the window. Great if you've never edited before, but if you want to edit, iMovie isn't an option. If you want to slap together a super quick video, it's almost faster to cut and paste clips in a QT7 window then use iMovie now.
Speaking of that. I really hope they fix QTX today also, at least bring it up to par with QT7 in features.
Click to expand...

I thought the new iMovie was genius. I knew SO many family members who wouldn't touch the old iMovie because it was too complicated. They needed something simpler and the new iMovie gave it to them.

I really think the only people who complained about the new iMovie were people who should have been using Final Cut Express all along anyway. It's not Apple's fault that they weren't using the right program before.
 
econgeek said:
50 years ago there were no computers. If you want to go back to the moviola, nobody is stopping you. You seem to think that sticking with outdated metaphors is inherently somehow better.



You may have never used iMovie but it is foolish to assume that none of us have. That idea that you can't edit in iMovie is nonsense, and absurd on the face of it.
Click to expand...

The basic process of "This is my source, this is my output" has been around as long as film editing. The overall look of video editing, be it tape to tape, or the current (FC7) editing layout is more or less the same. In points, out points, etc.


Anyway, you know what. Fine. You can have your new iMovie. All yours. I sure as hell can't use it. The trailers in '11 were cute, but beyond that, it's not nearly good enough for polished output. If you want am, there's your option.

All I'm asking is they leave final cut PRO to the pros who know how to use it and like the interface. I want under the hood tweaks to make it faster. Cocoa?
 
Small White Car said:
I thought the new iMovie was genius. I knew SO many family members who wouldn't touch the old iMovie because it was too complicated. They needed something simpler and the new iMovie gave it to them.

I really think the only people who complained about the new iMovie were people who should have been using Final Cut Express all along anyway. It's not Apple's fault that they weren't using the right program before.
Click to expand...

It's always the users fault. :rolleyes:
 
CIA said:
The basic process of "This is my source, this is my output" has been around as long as film editing. The overall look of video editing, be it tape to tape, or the current (FC7) editing layout is more or less the same. In points, out points, etc.


Anyway, you know what. Fine. You can have your new iMovie. All yours. I sure as hell can't use it. The trailers in '11 were cute, but beyond that, it's not nearly good enough for polished output. If you want am, there's your option.

All I'm asking is they leave final cut PRO to the pros who know how to use it and like the interface. I want under the hood tweaks to make it faster. Cocoa?
Click to expand...

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
 
CIA said:
The basic process of "This is my source, this is my output" has been around as long as film editing.
Click to expand...

The variety of source formats is going to continue to expand. Sure, some common standards emerge, such as hard drives and flash media, but just because in the past there was only one origination and one output format doesn't mean that this is the way the process has to work, or is somehow intrinsically superior.

The overall look of video editing, be it tape to tape, or the current (FC7) editing layout is more or less the same. In points, out points, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is my point. I grant that, in the early days, when computers were new and computer based editing was seeking adoption from an industry full of professionals who had been doing it the same way for 20-30 years-- it made a lot of sense to emulate the workflow that they were using.

Now that computer editing has existed for a couple decades (give or take) the fact that it started out emulating the old methods is not, ipso facto, proof that it should continue to work the old ways.
 
275779449.jpg


well, in cast there was any doubt.
 
marcre3363 said:
I received an email from Avid yesterday offering FCP owners an opportunity to buy Media Composer for $995. If I had the cash, I'd probably jump on it.
Click to expand...

I work professionally on both and I would never get MC for personal use. If given a choice I'd pick FCP every time. AVID (5.5, the latest) crashed on me 3 times today - I've found FCP extremely stable on my systems.
 
CIA said:
The trailers in '11 were cute, but beyond that, it's not nearly good enough for polished output. If you want am, there's your option.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You feel that you get to dictate arbitrary standards that you cannot articulate with any specifics, and then belittle those who point out that another way of doing something can lead to superior results for them.

All I'm asking is they leave final cut PRO to the pros who know how to use it and like the interface.
Click to expand...

Pro is not a code word for "stuck in the 1940s".
 
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