-
AFTER NAB thoughts regarding Final Cut
-
So what about the REAL need in FCP: a Hardware based, REAL time effects/rendering engine. Anyone remember AfterEffects on ICE? After countless hours rendering green screen timelines, multi-effects, and simply transcoding multiple video sources, why do we live with this underdeveloped program as it exists in the past 6 versions!? The new (ie.:Red) support features are simple a tease to keep us upgrading this lame pig of a product. Sorry to offend the million loyal users, but we have gotten the brush off from Apple in a big way this year.
Richard Boghosian
Bogh AV ProductionsFCP 5.14 Intel Quad XRaid and Atto SCSI UL5D Kona LHe
-
[Richard Boghosian] “Anyone remember AfterEffects on ICE?”
Yeah, and that required a rather large card to be installed into the machine back in the day when we had 6 or 7 slots. Now we have four. Graphics Card, AJA Kona, ATTO R380 Host Adapter and a LaCie SATA adapter in my machine. No room for another card.
The machines are much faster and Leopard does render faster. Super Fast Arrays give you a ton of realtime for editing away. That’s why I always spend a bit more on high speed storage, to cut down on rendering.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
HD and SD Production for Broadcast and Independent Productions.STOP STARING AND START GRADING WITH APPLE COLOR Apple Color Training DVD available now!
Read my Blog!
-
At the time, the Apple XRaid WAS fast storage, and 5.04 ran faster on a Power PC than 5.14 on my current Intel Quad. And there is no excuse why we don’t have more PCI slots in those huge enclosures. And lane speed assignments- what a joke at the premium price. We accept what they make because we have to -they ignore the marketplace (and NAB) at our peril -unfortunately not theirs. In addition to an iLife division, they need a proLife division. One million of us deserve more.
Richard Boghosian
Bogh AV ProductionsFCP 5.14 Intel Quad XRaid and Atto SCSI UL5D Kona LHe
-
[walter biscardi] “Yeah, and that required a rather large card to be installed into the machine back in the day…”
I’ve got a “Blue ICE” card for an Intel based Avid if you are interested. 🙂
-
[Richard Boghosian] “At the time, the Apple XRaid WAS fast storage, and 5.04 ran faster on a Power PC than 5.14 on my current Intel Quad. And there is no excuse why we don’t have more PCI slots in those huge enclosures. And lane speed assignments- what a joke at the premium price. We accept what they make because we have to -they ignore the marketplace (and NAB) at our peril -unfortunately not theirs. In addition to an iLife division, they need a proLife division. One million of us deserve more.”
I have more than my fair share of shots at Apple that I am sure pissed them off, stepping on their toes for things that make no sense to me. But this comment and sub-thread has me scratching my head…
I remember quite well the days of the ICE cards — I have two here, wanna buy one or both? I remember the HUGE costs just to get the plug-ins that were ICE’d and how tempermental the whole thing was. Kathlyn and I used to joke that we weren’t sure that in the end the limits weren’t exceeding the benefits. Did I mention the price was also huge and when you added the cost of the effects, it became far more than we pay for machines and software today???
Hell, I paid more for a 9gig Micropolis 1991 video-capable drive — at $3,500 for 9gigs — than I would for three suites of Final Cut Studio today.
I really don’t see the complaint, at all.
The cost-to-feature/benefit ratio is squarely laid to the benefit of the user today.
Pining away for the glory days of the ICE cards is amazingly myopic in my opinion, as it ignores ALL of the other factors at play — both then and now.
Given a choice of staying in the present or going back to the days when ICE was the greatest thing since sliced bread, I’ll take the present, thank you.
If you need two more ICE cards, lemme me know — they’re hot and they’re in stock.
Oh, with FREE delivery, too!
😉
Best regards,
Ron Lindeboom
-
[Richard Boghosian] “So what about the REAL need in FCP: a Hardware based, REAL time effects/rendering engine.”
What are you talking about? The real need for FCP is hardware acceleration?
[Richard Boghosian] “Anyone remember AfterEffects on ICE?”
I remember that. That was really cool for a while, until computers became so much faster than the board that it didn’t make sense.
If you’re looking for hardware acceleration, then you’re going to have to spend some money for an Autodesk, Quantel, AVID, etc system. As nice as hardware acceleration would be, it’s not for FCP. It just doesn’t make sense for it’s users or Apple for a number of different reasons.
I realize I might sound harsh, but I disagree with you on this.
-Russ
Russell Lasson
Kaleidoscope Pictures
Provo, UT -
Hardware acceleration doesn’t make sense? Really?
The new Nitris DX looks more promising to me for instant videos, i.e., effects on multiple layers no waiting. Throw a few effects on the old FCP timeline and it can’t render 3 layers of DV quickly much less play it back in realtime. If you and your clients are used to Final Cut Pro rendering then I’d guess acceleration isn’t high on your priority list. But if you and your clients are used to AVID playback and rendering, then your priorities are probably different.
If you could play your motion project back in realtime without rendering a few layers, what would that be worth to you over the course of a few years?
Isn’t AJA using hardware acceleration in their new IO box?
Or how about the very high end Redbox
https://www.pixellexis.com/
Hardware acceleration must make sense for at least somebody.
This is America. We don’t like to wait. We want it now. Hardware acceleration gives immediate feedback in the creative process which is invaluable. It’s not all about economy, but it’s about art as well.more thoughts….
Furthermore, the other posters are probably right about Apple seeming to be unresponsive to foundational issues regarding media management and studio programs interoperability issues after upgrading Apple software. At last year’s NAB the Apple rep (from Apple) denied there were any media management problems. So where do you go when there are issues and the manufacturer says there are not? When that filter doesn’t work or that codec spits out anomalies? Efficacy affects my blood pressure, too.
The cumulative software costs for FCP over the last four years have approached or exceeded the costs of a new Media Composer today. The amount of time I’ve spent troubleshooting software issues with FCP and Apple OS over that time has been enormous. I can’t underestimate the heartache. The computer costs are the same today. But Media Composer offers hardware acceleration as well. I’m buying a new computer and analyzing the cost/benefit of each editing solution. Adobe CS is a must either way. Encore offers a Blu-Ray solution which seems to be a growth opportunity. FCS’s DVDSP hasn’t been able to keep up with Adobe and others even though they say they have 1 million plus users. AVID seems to handle the P2 thing a bit more easily than FCP does. Time is money. The economies of 2004 for FCP don’t seem comparable to those of 2008 and they deserve re-evaluating. There are more quality freelance AVID editors here than quality FCP editors. Apple’s absence from NAB without any apparent software fanfare seems to bolster the rumor they’re going to unload their proApps division. If so, do you invest in FCP today? Ahh, I hear the outrage over such blasphemy, but I’m not speaking to the religious.
-
[Jeff Coleman] “Hardware acceleration doesn’t make sense? Really?
The new Nitris DX looks more promising to me for instant videos, i.e., effects on multiple layers no waiting.”Then that’s what you buy. Always buy the tool you and your clients require.
[Jeff Coleman] “Throw a few effects on the old FCP timeline and it can’t render 3 layers of DV quickly much less play it back in realtime.”
Depends on the machine. our G5 Quad, Mac Pro Quad 3.0 and now our new Octo 3.5 all blaze through renders. Our G5 Dual 2.0 is rather slow with renders compared to those two. Faster machine equals faster renders.
Oh and faster hard drives means more realtime. We have a 500MB/s RAID here so we can run about 12 layers of DV if we wanted to or some pretty serious stacks of filters on 3 layers of DV and that will still run in realtime no problem.
[Jeff Coleman] “Isn’t AJA using hardware acceleration in their new IO box?”
Realtime scaling of DVCPro HD and HDV so the processors can be used to add more filters in realtime.
[Jeff Coleman] “This is America. We don’t like to wait. We want it now.”
Yes and you also have a choice. If you want it right now and Product A doesn’t have it, but Product B does, then you buy Product B. Don’t complain when you can’t get hardware acceleration from a product that won’t offer it when you can easily get it from another product.
Of course you pay for that hardware acceleration so it’s your call. Save money, buy Studio 2 or spend more for the acceleration.
I don’t need any more hardware acceleration beyond what we have. We have tons of realtime available to use thanks to building very beefy FCP systems that include very fast hard drive arrays. Most people don’t put enough emphasis on the arrays and just purchase anything for storage, then complain when they don’t get realtime.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
HD and SD Production for Broadcast and Independent Productions.STOP STARING AND START GRADING WITH APPLE COLOR Apple Color Training DVD available now!
Read my Blog!
-
[walter biscardi] “Don’t complain when you can’t get hardware acceleration from a product that won’t offer it when you can easily get it from another product.”
Really?
What if someone would substitute “hardware acceleration” for any other issue one might be having with a product. Like drop frame for 720p? One shouldn’t complain? So one should just buy the Avid then since one could easily get if from them? Is that what you did?At this level, there is built into the purchase of the software product an expectation of (how should I say this?) accommodating present or emerging common real-life field circumstances either by patch or upgrade. The buyer expects the software over the long haul to be competitive with the best products in it’s class.
I wouldn’t consider hardware acceleration a common real-life circumstance anymore than CMX would have considered non-linear editing a common real-life circumstance. The point of the previous poster was to gain faster editing in FCP through hardware acceleration that he thinks he needs in order to do his common jobs more effectively. I too work on a very new very tricked out MacPro with a very fast SAN and while it is faster than that old 2GHz G5, it still takes some rendering. Which is probably why my client who works regularly with an Avid, has asked me, “Is this a fast computer they have here?”
It’s reasonable to desire faster editing capability and foundational editing capability from a product at this level. This is not open sourceware wherein the buyer doesn’t know if any updates or support will ever be coming.
I welcome his suggestion. There are many things about FCP that I prefer over Avid, but speed and media management aren’t on that list. Do you think they’ll ever be? -
[Jeff Coleman] “It’s reasonable to desire faster editing capability and foundational editing capability from a product at this level. This is not open sourceware wherein the buyer doesn’t know if any updates or support will ever be coming. There are many things about FCP that I prefer over Avid, but speed and media management aren’t on that list. Do you think they’ll ever be?”
I hate to smack of being an Apple fanboy or something but there is one fact that has yet to be addressed in this thread…
Cost.
A fully tricked Avid with all the bells and whistles can run many, many, many times that of a fully tricked MacPro running Final Cut Studio.
Will there be areas where one will best the other?
Yes.
But when it comes to cost-to-feature ratios, I think that even the staunchest Avid user would have to give the nod to Apple — just as any Apple user half honest and knowledgeable would concede Avid beats FCP hands-down when it comes to areas like media management and with-client editing advantages.
But hey, keeping a whole hell of a lot of money in your pocket isn’t a bad advantage either.
Which one is the more important is up to the individual.
Just my two centavos,
Ron Lindeboom
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up