Jamie Franklin
Forum Replies Created
-
The only luck I have ever had with a reference monitor coming *close* to a realistic output is a plasma. Get some proper bars and you should be in the ball park…but I wouldn’t trust it 😉 The reds I find are always hot in my experience. LED and LCD are just wretched for reference imho. But maybe someone else has found a decent set…?
-
I’ll try and take a stab at this
1) Not sure yet..
2) A quick work around might be to bring the clip you are looking to extend into your media pool again. The conflict might be caused by the in point from an edl, clip marker or aaf not allowing you to play around with the clip…?
-
[Nikolas Bäurle] “small doesn’t make it mini”
Its always the small ones that get so defensive 😛
I meant it as a self contained parking lot like the mini. The comparison is fair.
[Nikolas Bäurle] “It looks cool and its looks like it will be very fast and next year even faster, what more do we need?”
Who is that for? The businessman? Looking cool is still in? Being fast is everything? Not sure if you heard, a lot of post facilities were doing big layoffs and vfx houses at the oscars had some words buzzing around…like “bankruptcy”. For an industry on the ropes, on a rollarcoaster of retooling, sacrificing and repackaging costs, it sure would be a peculiar decision to buy what looks “cool” and what’s fast without any other consideration.
[Nikolas Bäurle] “My G5 still works, one of the places I work for still uses Legacy on their 12 Core MacPros. Why should the new MacPro integrate anything from older workflows? I don’t see the point.”
I don’t see your point. FCP cut very deep in the industry, which is why this self contained parking lot is a very puzzling move. As is the Server EOL. But I don’t know much, I just work in a post facility with 14 MPROS 😉
[Nikolas Bäurle] “As far as I remember DaVinci Resolve used to be this huge machine thing, pretty expensive. Even if the new MacPro turns out more expensive, I can get Resolve for free, or 1000 bucks for the full package.”
So was color. So was Avid…we can shine many lights on examples here that have nothing to really do with anything. Because these systems were more expensive the criticisms on this new rig and how they will incorporate in current workflows are automatically invalid?
It’s a discussion, not a black and white issue.
-
[Jim Wiseman] ” I think the larger facilities will adapt to it”
Sure. At a huge expense. Thunderbolt is not cheap and we can now start looking to somewhat affordable cloud based solutions on dummy boxes with quad ethernet and fibre at expected costs that are manageable until thunder loses some of it’s monetary potency. I’m surprised you think larger facilities will move to it. I keep seeing moves away from Apple.
If the price is right, this will move and FCX can move boxes. But it still doesn’t answer the question. Who is this for that can’t get results for half the price on solutions now, even mac solutions…?
Maybe the question should be, where in the chain could this integrate in a cloud solution? And how, since, you know, it really is just a Mac Pro Mini
-
[Michael Hadley] “no reason to change…..(And those who use Davinci Resolve—at least according to Blackmagic’s CEO, who has had a chance to fully evaluate it).”
This to me is the most puzzling…we’re working off 5 year old tech on 2 year old rigs with another 6-8 months away from the “refresh” that can’t exactly integrate…
Davinci…? Who is this for? The basement pro who has a 6k Sony trimaster el? Maybe one fell off a truck? Once he shells out probably 5k for the tube, another 600 for the rocket chassis? I guess everything will be handed off to him via thunderbolt drive filled with trims that his client has to pay for? Or will he? Maybe a drobo…another 750$? Tipping over 12k now…
Is the facility going to integrate this tube for Davinci without cuda’s…? Are they going to have to buy chassis’ for fibre, rockets, output 16 tracks of audio? What chassis do I need for that? aja’s, decklinks? $$$$$…more power captain! Perhaps all they need is a thunderbolt chassis to fit the cards. Not a bad idea…ok, there’s an argument for a facility. But there are many questions remaining until it’s released. Moving on.
When all is said and done, why would anyone upgrade or buy this for professional grading as a stand alone?? Is this really for stand alone projects which seems like massive overkill and hugely expensive to chassis…Stand alones are in HD…R3D? Trim>Set HDR>Render DPX>realtime playback on an imac.
Is this for a shared environment? You know, tv series, films, broadcast, which seems hugely expensive to chassis when a 5.1 will more than do and can expand on a whim at a fraction of the cost.
Is it for 4k? Time to move to HP at that point…8k isn’t far behind…
I sincerely want to know who this is for? That an Imac can’t accomplish for the average FCX user, or the HD Davinci stand alone user…
I think we all know who this is really for and going to benefit, comping and animating. I think people are drooling over something they want, not what they need, in the FCX verse.
I like the specs. I want the thing too. But it’s shiny and pretty and lonely and will kick butt…but for twice the price of what is needed.
I think there are a lot of diminishing returns to consider on this thing if it costs over 5-6k for FCX or Davinci. To start.
If this is 1500, loaded$ I’ll eat this post. With Tabasco.
-
[Charlie Austin] “Not sure about what you mean by Apple redefining “pro””
I don’t believe Apple has redefined it, I think we have. I do think Randy’s vision though distorted Apple’s culture of what defines a “pro” user. “If my grandma can do it, the pros will love it!!” mentality
Apple has made some disheartening moves the last few years as an interest based redefined “pro user”. In a short period of time I have gone from loving their pro products to absolute disdain.
I was excited for FCX.
I was excited for the Mac Pro.
Both are huge disappointments for me. Although I still give FCX the edge. The Mac Pro would make a great tool. I don’t believe FCX is, but neither work for me in a shared environment that can be incorporated in my existing eco-system. Which is a real shame and means I’ll finally be looking at HP. Which I should have done long ago, but my stubbornness for Mac won over. Shoulda coulda woulda…doing. Bygones.
And I’ll still be buying another (my 3rd) Macbook Pro. For an everyday tool on the go, it’s amazing.
-
Please. The difference, I may be aggressive towards the app or hardware. You guys start the aggression and snide on a personal basis.
Lets move on shall we.
The hardware will be amazing for the app. It just seems like overkill to me, add the potential expense and Apple tax. (price and required expansion)
The imacs, even the i7 mini, are nice. I don’t see the need for the redefined “pro”. Toys are fun, but when your bank account bleeds for overkill, you start seeing diminishing returns.
The Cudas will be missed.
-
What is it about Apple products that bring out this pathological passive aggression.
I like their products just as much as the next guy, but if someone criticizes their decisions or products, I don’t turn into a first year students sociology study.
-
You’re seeing what you want to see. I see people who are happy to use macs frustrated by the Apple ethos more than PC users having a go
-
What’s really interesting is how personal some of the mac heads take the discussion when seeing a new product criticized. That’s never happened before..