[Glenn Kenny]

I’m not quite sure what is uncivilized about people writing complaints and/or opinions on an update to a piece of software that is critical to their livelihood. I keep reading how we should be accepting this – that it is only version 1.0 and will improve in time. Nonsense, this is version 10 according to the name that has been chosen by the marketing types – version 8 by a more realistic account. Therefore, it should not be looked at as a brand new piece, but as the improvement its name implies. As such, removing the very capability that made it so easy to incorporate with industry standard (and custom) workflows would certainly account for the opinions being voiced. If Apple wanted to change direction and create a new market, they should have changed the name to something that indicated that change, and kept FCP 7 on the market, clarifying the difference. Then people may have been disappointed, but maybe not have felt abandoned. As of now, any facility that needs to increase capacity at this time must switch to a competing system if FCP X does not fit the bill. And how long will FCP 7 be able to run. Past Lion? Then what? On the other hand, at least it is a comfort knowing it will import iMovie projects! Now all we have to do is somehow import our old FCP 7 projects into iMovie, then import… well, never mind.

The reality is that in any facility larger than one editor, there is a need for interoperability. This was very well supported in FCP 7 and earlier, and is a lot of its reason for success. Yes, some workflows are old- EDLs have been around seemingly forever, OMF is pretty antiquated, but they still are used everyday. The rest of a facility’s equipment does not and cannot change overnight just to support a new editing package. The new editing package has to support the legacy, or loose that part of the market. It is certainly Apple’s right to decide on their product and its desired market, and only time will tell if they made a good decision Hopefully they will add these needed workflow capabilities back, but until then, many are left without much choice – either hope for the best or start looking for a substitute to keep their business going. Remember, these are professionals who make their living using these tools. Yes, maybe FCP X will be a game changer in the future, but we work in the present, and at the present time, we have no solution from Apple. That solution has been removed from the market.

As an aside, I find it interesting the OP finds fault with supporting a “2007 workflow”, but feels supporting a 100 year old workflow is professional. But yet in the closing remarks, comments that we should not post ideas of the last century (maybe other than film — talk about last century) if we haven’t used FCP X yet. There is not much reason to use it (or try it for that matter) if you know going in it will not be capable of doing the job. Anyone in business needing to make a profit would not waste their time. A profit!?! They must be professional by definition!

All this being said, it may be very slick for the one man bands and amateurs who want something more capable than iMovie. These people generally do not need the interoperability the larger facilities do. For these, it could be a game changer, and exactly the right choice. Maybe that’s what Apple has in mind.

Glenn Kenny

[Glenn Kenny]

[gary adcock] “I am with Shane on this one.

1080 is always transported as an interlaced signal- as that is what PsF is – an interlaced transmission and distribution signal that can interpreted as either progressive or interlace depending on whether the receiver can understand progressive. “

I disagree, John is correct on this one.

1080 is not transported as an interlaced signal, unless it was originated as an interlaced signal. If a camera is shot at 23.98p, 24p 23.98psf or 24psf, the signal is progressive, not interlaced. The psf signal is transported and recorded as what could be viewed as a TDM (Time Division Multiplex) representation of the progressive signal, where half (odd lines) are read out of the frame buffer and placed into the stream during one field time, then the other half (even lines) are read from the frame buffer and placed into the transport stream during the next field time. It could have been done by reading the top half of the buffer (lines 1-540), then the bottom half (lines 541-1080) and have had the same result, but the odd/even line approach allowed an interlaced monitor to display the progressive frame without having to have an (at the time) expensive frame buffer before the CRT. It is important to understand that since all that is being done is manipulating the timing of the transport of each line, but not the information of of each line, there is no change to the original signal, so therefor it stays progressive. Interlacing would only occur if there was some difference between the two halves of the frames being applied during the transmission, which does not happen.

In the end any display will interpret the psf signal as progressive, since that is what it is. It may (if it is a CRT) display it as odd/even lines, but it is still progressive, with no temporal difference between the odd/even lines. If the signal is interlace, the display will, if it is a CRT, display it as interlace, since that is what it is. There could be a temporal difference between the odd/even lines because of this, depending on the content (still or motion). If it is a more modern display, it will most likely display it as progressive in either case, by de-interlacing and scaling to fill the display. The means and methods of that process is very dependent on the make/model of the display, so the look can vary greatly with the same content.

In the end, there is no difference between psf and “true progressive” with the exception of the transport stream. When the final signal is displayed or processed, they are identical.

Sorry to be so long winded, and maybe overly technical, but hopefully this will clear some confusion and not add more.

Glenn Kenny