-
The New Mac
-
[Herb Sevush] “Yes the idea of re-wrapping 14 Terabytes of material somehow doesn’t appeal to me.
“Well, there’s that.
-
Somebody needs some coffee.
-
[Bob Zelin] “And amateurs look at “all that stuff” and say “how can you figure all this stuff out”. That’s what we do”
If the two PCIe slots and that couple of esata ports were present on the new MP, I’d have probably added a couple of fake external boxes with cables just the same. I love the effect they have on those amateurs 🙂
Fabrizio D’Agnano
Rome, Italy
early 2008 MacPro, BM Intensity Pro, early 2008 iMac, 2011 MacBook Pro, FCP7, FCPX, OSX 10.8.3 -
Well put.
A professional user is someone who makes money using the gear or uses the gear as part of the way they make a living.
A lot of folks fall into these groups who were not in the traditional pool. A pool by the way that has only been around for about 23 years and took over half of that to be the professional tool set. Not much of a tradition among traditions.
The high end is not going away, but putting down any one who uses less expensive/complex installations is completely missing the boat.
My father’s generation used the term “a real pro” as a compliment, meaning the person lived up to a high standard of craft and efficiency. By contrast “a hack” was still a professional but did not live up to this standard. A lot of professional TV productions created by pros using all these high-end tools are hack jobs. The judgment is not necessarily personal. TV and Film production is a huge collaborative effort. A colorist on a movie might well be a real pro and a true artist yet the movie is still a paint-by-the-numbers hack job.
I would guess that there are more people employed using high-end installations of this gear now than ever. But they are no longer the only fish in the pond. Insulting other users because they do not use these high-end installations is a sign of insecurity. And insulting companies that make products for them is self-defeating.
The Internet is fast becoming the real pond in which the vast majority of multimedia produced (using both high and low end gear) will be distributed. And although the production standards are certainly higher on average for productions that use the high-end gear, there will be more and more productions shot and distributed using prosumer level gear that are much more interesting and artistic than what is being distributed now on cable and in theatres.
Because the productions will not cost as much to make, there will be more variety and much greater experimentation. The serious hobbyist not that long ago shot using 16mm film cams and edited literally cutting and taping the film into a sequence. But unlike now, they had no way to distribute their passion and no way to make a living from it.
Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Camcorders: Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV30/40, Sony Z7U, VX2000, PD170; FCP 6 certified; write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.
-
Would you really need to rewrap 14TB? Any multicam project I’ve had has been fairly contained with no or minimal need for archival footage or to become archival footage. Seems like moving to DNxHD with any future multicam work would be viable. But workflows are very different from shop to shop. While my multicam projects stay failry contained, your multicam edits could involve archived footage that exists as ProRes today.
Alternatively, I’ve had brilliant luck with Premiere CC and multicam. I cut 9 angles on a 2 year old laptop. In a coffee shop. Because I could. Rumour is there’s a nasty bug out there, but I never encountered it.
Either way you go workflow is going to have to change a bit.
-
I knew of a local production company that took their JVC KY-2000 and painted it grey so it would look more like a Ikegami HL79.
Nothing would shock me. 🙂
-
[Chris Harlan] “Somebody needs some coffee.”
But he’s right.
If you’re making tv or anything else, nobody really cares how you did it or what gear you used.
Computers – the generally used black box on the floor full of drives and cards – aren’t like that to be fashion statements, they are there to do a job efficiently, and they evolved that way. They aren’t like this any more…
…because that isn’t a practical shape to do the jobs we need to do these days. They’ve evolved to a general shape like this….
or this ….
..because that does the job. Taking away the ability to add and remove cards and drives is what politicians in the UK would call “a very brave choice”. Apple tends to get away with this sort of thing because it’s Apple and can do no wrong for some of us. But a cylinder isn’t the way other companies think computers should be shaped, and I rather think they may be right.
B
Bernie
-
[Jeff Meyer] “Would you really need to rewrap 14TB? Any multicam project I’ve had has been fairly contained with no or minimal need for archival footage or to become archival footage. Seems like moving to DNxHD with any future multicam work would be viable. But workflows are very different from shop to shop. While my multicam projects stay failry contained, your multicam edits could involve archived footage that exists as ProRes today.”
This has nothing to do with archival footage. Every spring I shoot 14 Terrabytes of ProRes material for a 26 show cooking series shot with 5 cameras. How long do you think it would take Avid to re-wrap this amount of footage?
[Jeff Meyer] “Alternatively, I’ve had brilliant luck with Premiere CC and multicam. I cut 9 angles on a 2 year old laptop. “
Can you match back into the multicam object in PPro, can you intercut into the same sequence shots from different multicam clips and then have complete reference to those clips as you refine your edit ? I have been told that PPro can’t do this, but maybe I’ve been led astray. If your multicam edit was something other than a music video I’d love to hear more details.
[Jeff Meyer] “Either way you go workflow is going to have to change a bit.”
I’m hoping it can change for the better, not the other way around.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
Your second example is just your first example sitting on it’s side – a little bigger maybe but not exactly a major revision.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
Back in the day of the pre x os and Motorola processors you could make the argument that an Apple computer was different. These days, once you get beyond the subjective aesthetic appeal of the case; what are you really left with?
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up