-
Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
-
Hi Tom your a 100 percent right 😉
-
[John Perez] “If you want a single application that does everything then Smoke for Mac is the baby for you.”
Ah, there’s the rub. Who wants to pay for a Smoke today for a unified application? Is Smoke still $15,000 plus $2,000 for the maintenance agreement?
So in order to make some folks here happy, Apple is supposed to develop a more powerful, unified application that still costs $999 but performs like a $15,000 app.
See there’s the problem I have with folks who complain about all the shortcomings with Final Cut Pro. We know what the shortcomings are, we know how to work around them, we know which tools to use to offset those shortcomings. And we still don’t come close to $17,000 per computer for software to make this happen.
Creating a more tightly unified suite will cost far less than creating one, bloated “super app.” Unless everyone here is ready to pony up $10,000 or more for the new Apple Super Duper Final Cut Studio.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media“Foul Water, Fiery Serpent” Winner, Best Documentary, LA Reel Film Festival.
-
I didn’t mean to suggest that those apps should disappear, just that the tech that crosses over should be exactly the same. Keframing in FCP the same as Motion. Audio filters and adjusting the same as soundtrack, etc. A subset of the others apps should be available from within FCP in other words.
-
This is awhat an Smoker user wrote in this forum less than one week ago (https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/8/1105309)
” So a decision was made to go FCP and Smoke. However we are finding that the Smoke isn’t actually doing very much ‘onlining’& is really just a v.expensive import/playout machine.”
Rafael -
Yeah, but the context of that is vague. Smoke, it seems, has a steep learning curve. I doubt you can sit down and edit super fast with no training or experience on the interface. If you’re used to FCP then Smoke represents a bit of a learning environment.
The video tracks with layers inside them is really sweet, though. I’d really like to get a Smoke on the Mac
demo sometime.And Walter, your point about cost is s good one, but I’d be willing to pay more for more robust features. After buying FCP and all the plug ins I need to make it work for all I need to do (Including After Effects as my main ‘plug in’) the cost would even out over time vs productivity in mostly one application.
The idea that was mentioned to make FCP Express more of what FCP is now and then have a more fully featured FCS is intriguing. That would keep the cost of entry down for those that don’t need the better finishing tools.
-
Its not as if there is not an option for people right now.
As has been said – Smoke for Mac is on the market. If the marketing hype is to be believed, then it will do pretty much everything that is being requested.
And as many have stated, they would pay more for a stable all in one product.
So whats holding you all back?
Why sit there complaining that Apple hasn’t listened to your wishlist and created iSmoke?…just go buy the competitions offering.
You may love Apple, whereas Apple loves mainly your wallet – its your purchases that help keep them where they are, not your unwavering devotion.
If you are unhappy in your relationship – mend it or move on. Although depending on how you deal with it, a divorce could be cheaper!
adam
Adam Taylor
Video Editor/Audio Mixer/ Compositor/Motion GFX/Barista
Character Options Ltd
Oldham, UKhttp://www.sculptedbliss.co.uk
-
Smoke has its place, but it’s not for everyone. Like any tool, it’s not appropriate for all situations. I’m considering getting a Smoke myself for fast-turnaround work, but I don’t expect it to completely replace FCP, AE, and DaVinci in my business.
Smoke on Mac in particular is a good example of the jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none trade-off in an all-in-one app. Smoke is primarily an editor, but I don’t know very many people who cut from scratch in Smoke. It’s a compositor, but (particularly without Batch on Mac) it’s somewhat limited, so serious compositors use Nuke. It’s an effects package, but it’s not After Effects. It’s a color corrector, but with only 3 secondaries, so it’s no Color or DaVinci.
So why do people use it? Smoke’s primary advantage comes from always having that entire toolkit at your disposal. It’s high quality, and it’s fast, but it’s not cheap. If you need high quality and low cost, today’s FCS sacrifices speed with separate tools for each job.
Smoke’s secondary advantage is outstanding integration with the rest of the Autodesk suite — sharing media and metadata with Flame, Flare, and Lustre.
FCS has neither an all-in-one tool nor a seamless pipeline. The capabilities are mostly there, but the integration falls completely flat. I don’t really care if it’s a single app or a tightly-integrated suite, but hopefully Apple will re-evaluate our workflows and smooth out the pro apps pipeline.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
Walter,
We are actually closer in opinion then you might imagine.
My statement should have been “FCP will go away as an Apple Product”
Apple has 40 billion plus in revenue. As someone else has stated here, there are 1 million FCP users (?) so that represents at retail 1 billion to Apple over the course of FCP’s lifetime.
If all those updated to a New Super Duper FCP at lets say 300.00 per
(you and I both know that nobody is gonna want to buy it again and will scream hell and high water if there is no cheap upgrade path)
That represents maybe another 300 million to Apple, A lot of money
to most, but not to a 40+ billion dollar a year company.
We are talking about a small niche piece of software that I just don’t see Apple putting a lot of resources into.
It is what it is.
Like you mentioned there are other products out there that already do what most are asking for, They just cost more. (But way, way, less than a CMX or Kscope) It would be a smart move for Apple to sell this program, They could even restrict by contract,
it’s future development to only run on Apple OS’s Thus insuring future sales of their hardware. As far as Apple having employees
who read these forums and such, that may be true but do they
have the experience and knowledge to know what is being talked about
and the ability to effect any change? If you remember years ago
all Avid users railed against Avid and Avid did nothing until
they saw other fingers deep in their rice bowl. Apples FCP rice bowl is not deep enough or strategic enough for them to care, They, for sure, are more interested in making all think they need an IPAD
more than an extra roll of toilet paper in the bathroom.Neil Hurwitz
-
[Neil Hurwitz] “As someone else has stated here, there are 1 million FCP users (?) “
More than one million licenses (that was almost 2 years ago), so few millions copy working.I don’t consider at all FC as “a small niche piece of software,
but in MHO, the issue is not just about money. Is about defining APPLE.
Without FC, Macs will disappear.
rafael -
[Jeremy Garchow] “And Walter, your point about cost is s good one, but I’d be willing to pay more for more robust features. After buying FCP and all the plug ins I need to make it work for all I need to do (Including After Effects as my main ‘plug in’) the cost would even out over time vs productivity in mostly one application.”
You and I both would pay more for more features and a more robust platform. Like me adding Davinci Resolve because at $999 it’s a no brainer to add it to have it in the toolbox even if we just use it a few times during the year.
But we are definitely in the minority when many folks balk at $99 for a plug in and want everything to be free.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media“Foul Water, Fiery Serpent” Winner, Best Documentary, LA Reel Film Festival.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up