kiwi_the_iwik
Apr 14, 02:31 AM
Even though I've worked in the broadcast industry for over 25 years, as a cameraman I don't consider myself to be a professional editor at all. In fact, I probably know how to use only about 1% of the full potential of Final Cut Pro.
However, we as operators are sometimes required to send either edited track and rushes or complete edited packages from locations either locally or abroad, and in broadcast quality.
The ease of use in acquiring footage using a tapeless medium via Log & Transfer (in our case, P2 @ DVCPRO HD), editing on a native timeline and then transferring back to a card with no loss from transcoding is phenomenal. But FCP 6 & 7 had some caveats which I'd hoped would be addressed - especially with our codec of choice.
Our network decided to go with P2 because it was the most solid and diverse codec available for news, current affairs, sports and documentary use - being MPEG-4 native with an Intra-base (with no GOP). Metadata is an important aspect of our workflow, and older versions of FCP relied on third party applications in order to import metadata fields along with our clips.
So far, there's not been much noise as to whether Apple have addressed further P2 support for:
common loon feet.
A Common Loon
State Bird: Common Loon
us to the Common Loon
Common Loon. Marina
Observecommon loons feet and
Common Loon
common loon feet. migration of
Common Loon - Gavia immer
Loon foot
Common Loon
Common Loon with Chicks by
The common loon that have a
Ten common loons (Gavia immer)
Common Loon
duck Common+loon+feet
Mated Pair of Common Loons
The Common Loon needs a long
However, we as operators are sometimes required to send either edited track and rushes or complete edited packages from locations either locally or abroad, and in broadcast quality.
The ease of use in acquiring footage using a tapeless medium via Log & Transfer (in our case, P2 @ DVCPRO HD), editing on a native timeline and then transferring back to a card with no loss from transcoding is phenomenal. But FCP 6 & 7 had some caveats which I'd hoped would be addressed - especially with our codec of choice.
Our network decided to go with P2 because it was the most solid and diverse codec available for news, current affairs, sports and documentary use - being MPEG-4 native with an Intra-base (with no GOP). Metadata is an important aspect of our workflow, and older versions of FCP relied on third party applications in order to import metadata fields along with our clips.
So far, there's not been much noise as to whether Apple have addressed further P2 support for:
lapeno
Mar 25, 01:26 PM
hope to see the jailbreak soon
newuser2310
Apr 26, 05:59 PM
Ive never read so much ignorance and thinly veiled racism in one thread. Some of you nobs should be ashamed of yourselves.
Of course people will turn to crime in poor areas with little or no positive opportunities.
Genetic? Dont make me sick.
Of course people will turn to crime in poor areas with little or no positive opportunities.
Genetic? Dont make me sick.
Eraserhead
Jan 11, 12:40 PM
Doesn't "something in the air" usually refer to love? So it could mean anything, which is why its showing ;).
Of course as a technological thing, it probably refers to wireless, or possibly something "light".
Of course as a technological thing, it probably refers to wireless, or possibly something "light".
FJ218700
Jan 11, 01:44 PM
perhaps the new ultra-portable will not need a power cord.
I remember a patent application from a while back . . .
I remember a patent application from a while back . . .
BlueRevolution
Mar 18, 02:18 PM
Rofl. Yeah right, reality distortion field...
Still there. They just cranked it up so that it covers all of us. ;)
Still there. They just cranked it up so that it covers all of us. ;)
bketchum
Sep 4, 04:07 PM
Originally Posted by Ted13
I certainly hope that the resolution on the Apple Movie Store will be AT LEAST 480x720 (aka 480P). Otherwise, between Netflix and super cheap DVDs these days, I don't see how Apple can compete with lower than DVD resolution.
If they are really smart (and the studios play ball, which is doubtful) they would go straight to 1080P.
I agree with you on the DVD quality. But could imagine how long it would take to downlaod a 1080p film? Days! The hard drive space would be another thing, it would be about 10 or 11 gigs for one film! At least. This is not going to be possible for at least 3 or 4 years I would say.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Just as a test (not very scientific)... I went to the Apple Quicktime site and downloaded "The Queen" HD movie trailer at 1080P. Using an iBook connected to Airport Extreme wifi that's connected to an advertised 5-Mbps internet cable service, it took me about 5 minutes to download the 2-minute, 150-MB trailer. A little math tells me that a two-hour movie will take me about 300 minutes (5 hours) to download, and the size of the file will be about 9000 Mb in size.
To me that's not outrageous. However, it does mean planning ahead. I won't be able to start watching the movie five minutes after I've started downloading it. The real-time viewing will catch up to the download. I would need to give it about a four-hour head start.
No matter, my 1.33-GHz iBook isn't powerful enough to play 1080P HD movies without dropping frames and sound every few seconds. I think there are a lot of people in the same position as me. I cannot believe that Apple will offer just one level of movie quality. Just like what Apple currently offers on its movie trailer site, I'm guessing you'll be able to rent or buy 480P, 720P, or 1080P quality movies.
It took me just 50 seconds to download the same two-minute-long trailer at 480P quality. The size of the file is about 30 Mb. That means it will take me about 50 minutes to download the whole 1800 MB movie. At that rate, I can start watching the movie right away. My internet connection provides a download rate that is twice as fast as the movie viewing rate. That is exactly what I want. On impulse, I can be watching any movie I want within a few seconds. At full screen on my iBook, the 480P movie looks like I'm watching a rented DVD movie. The best part: No trips to incredibly annoying video stores.
I'm guessing the time it takes to download a 720P movie, and its file size, will fall somewhere halfway between the 480P and the 1080P movie.
I certainly hope that the resolution on the Apple Movie Store will be AT LEAST 480x720 (aka 480P). Otherwise, between Netflix and super cheap DVDs these days, I don't see how Apple can compete with lower than DVD resolution.
If they are really smart (and the studios play ball, which is doubtful) they would go straight to 1080P.
I agree with you on the DVD quality. But could imagine how long it would take to downlaod a 1080p film? Days! The hard drive space would be another thing, it would be about 10 or 11 gigs for one film! At least. This is not going to be possible for at least 3 or 4 years I would say.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Just as a test (not very scientific)... I went to the Apple Quicktime site and downloaded "The Queen" HD movie trailer at 1080P. Using an iBook connected to Airport Extreme wifi that's connected to an advertised 5-Mbps internet cable service, it took me about 5 minutes to download the 2-minute, 150-MB trailer. A little math tells me that a two-hour movie will take me about 300 minutes (5 hours) to download, and the size of the file will be about 9000 Mb in size.
To me that's not outrageous. However, it does mean planning ahead. I won't be able to start watching the movie five minutes after I've started downloading it. The real-time viewing will catch up to the download. I would need to give it about a four-hour head start.
No matter, my 1.33-GHz iBook isn't powerful enough to play 1080P HD movies without dropping frames and sound every few seconds. I think there are a lot of people in the same position as me. I cannot believe that Apple will offer just one level of movie quality. Just like what Apple currently offers on its movie trailer site, I'm guessing you'll be able to rent or buy 480P, 720P, or 1080P quality movies.
It took me just 50 seconds to download the same two-minute-long trailer at 480P quality. The size of the file is about 30 Mb. That means it will take me about 50 minutes to download the whole 1800 MB movie. At that rate, I can start watching the movie right away. My internet connection provides a download rate that is twice as fast as the movie viewing rate. That is exactly what I want. On impulse, I can be watching any movie I want within a few seconds. At full screen on my iBook, the 480P movie looks like I'm watching a rented DVD movie. The best part: No trips to incredibly annoying video stores.
I'm guessing the time it takes to download a 720P movie, and its file size, will fall somewhere halfway between the 480P and the 1080P movie.
ddrueckhammer
Sep 12, 04:37 PM
This thing will sell like mad but why didn't they just make the the mini smaller and flash based last year?
chrono1081
Apr 2, 06:16 AM
This is the most simplistic statement.
A crap camera will never take a great picture, despite the hands it is in.
No offense but its obvious you know nothing about photography. Your statement is 100% incorrect.
I guess these are bad pictures then if good pictures can't be taken without top of the line equipment:
A crap camera will never take a great picture, despite the hands it is in.
No offense but its obvious you know nothing about photography. Your statement is 100% incorrect.
I guess these are bad pictures then if good pictures can't be taken without top of the line equipment:
spiv
Apr 1, 02:06 AM
Ebay!!! There are deals to be found - got my 64Gb, Black, wi-fi, for 785! that was after I used the 10%(!) coupon they gave me for using paypal. Got lucky and found a guy locally that wasn't a greedy whore, and was happy to have made an extra 90 bucks for his time on line.
reel2reel
Apr 14, 09:42 AM
But...but...but...this is only "iMovie Pro"! Apple's dumbing it down! No "professional" would spit on this if it was on fire! A buncha internet blowhards said so, so it must be true!
Can you elaborate? What features make it dumbed down? Do you even know? Or are you just repeating what other ignorant people are saying cause it sounds cool?
Or are you actually employing sarcasm?
It's nice to see the generally positive comments on this forum, other forums for "professionals" are not so happy!
Personally I can't wait to start working with it.
I can't wait, either. I definitely won't use it professionally for quite a while but I'm excited to jump right in and start exploring. I'm guessing none of my 3rd party plugins will work and existing projects won't be compatible, but I'm so glad they're rebuilding FCP and moving into the future.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
If you think about it, it's not all too surprising that some of these "professionals" are getting so worked up and sulky over this release. The notion that "pro editing" can belong to just about anyone, rather than an exclusive circle of elites, poses an existential crisis. Apple's re-thinking of editing is also a re-thinking of what it means to be "professional". The announcement sheds light on a future in which their "advanced", learned techniques are no longer advantageous. The "industry pros" are facing the plight of impending impotence. It's not something anyone would really openly admit, but I think they're feeling a bit naked, stripped of their status.
Who can blame them for being pissy?
Haha, that sounds funny but it's not real-world. Film/Video production is actually hard work and requires skill and talent. Just because you can buy Final Cut Pro and learn where the buttons are doesn't mean you know the first thing about what you're doing. I see proof of this all the time. It's very hard to fill positions because a lot of up-and-comers these days can talk the talk but are actually dumb as feces. Call it "professional" or "elitist" or whatever you want but talk to me after you stare down the barrel of 200 hours of video and make a show out of it. Until then, you're all talk.
Can you elaborate? What features make it dumbed down? Do you even know? Or are you just repeating what other ignorant people are saying cause it sounds cool?
Or are you actually employing sarcasm?
It's nice to see the generally positive comments on this forum, other forums for "professionals" are not so happy!
Personally I can't wait to start working with it.
I can't wait, either. I definitely won't use it professionally for quite a while but I'm excited to jump right in and start exploring. I'm guessing none of my 3rd party plugins will work and existing projects won't be compatible, but I'm so glad they're rebuilding FCP and moving into the future.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
If you think about it, it's not all too surprising that some of these "professionals" are getting so worked up and sulky over this release. The notion that "pro editing" can belong to just about anyone, rather than an exclusive circle of elites, poses an existential crisis. Apple's re-thinking of editing is also a re-thinking of what it means to be "professional". The announcement sheds light on a future in which their "advanced", learned techniques are no longer advantageous. The "industry pros" are facing the plight of impending impotence. It's not something anyone would really openly admit, but I think they're feeling a bit naked, stripped of their status.
Who can blame them for being pissy?
Haha, that sounds funny but it's not real-world. Film/Video production is actually hard work and requires skill and talent. Just because you can buy Final Cut Pro and learn where the buttons are doesn't mean you know the first thing about what you're doing. I see proof of this all the time. It's very hard to fill positions because a lot of up-and-comers these days can talk the talk but are actually dumb as feces. Call it "professional" or "elitist" or whatever you want but talk to me after you stare down the barrel of 200 hours of video and make a show out of it. Until then, you're all talk.
Eidorian
Aug 7, 11:14 PM
FYI...anyone that is considering getting the in-store BT/AP module...
The tech on the phone told me that the G5 Powermac module will NOT work in the Mac Pro case...as the internals have been redesigned (power supply at the top, not bottom, new motherboard, etc.)
Also, seems the SATA interface is the newer "II" standard with twice the throughput, but it IS backwards compatible with SATA-I drives :DCheck the developer's notes. The Airport module runs on a x1 PCi Express slot and Bluetooth via internal USB 2.0.
The tech on the phone told me that the G5 Powermac module will NOT work in the Mac Pro case...as the internals have been redesigned (power supply at the top, not bottom, new motherboard, etc.)
Also, seems the SATA interface is the newer "II" standard with twice the throughput, but it IS backwards compatible with SATA-I drives :DCheck the developer's notes. The Airport module runs on a x1 PCi Express slot and Bluetooth via internal USB 2.0.
chuckles:)
Oct 15, 09:20 PM
Thx for info, I'm about to switch and gotta know that in case crap happens. lol :rolleyes:
i asked the same thing when i bought my forst mac @ an apple store about a year ago. the dude told me to ask him when it comes up.
it hasn't.
i asked the same thing when i bought my forst mac @ an apple store about a year ago. the dude told me to ask him when it comes up.
it hasn't.
SpinThis!
Nov 3, 05:10 PM
Web developers need to use approved open standards and stop using Flash as a crutch. And if by Apple's own image, you mean far superior open standards that are approved by the W3C, then yes! :rolleyes:
How is using what's often times necessary a crutch? Trying putting any kind of multimedia on your website or handling reliable file uploads and you'll quickly see why you need Flash to reach the broadest audience. Developers have been shouting to the W3C for years for what we need and HTML5 still doesn't address much of the stuff you'd rely on Flash for.
Sadly, most Flash use is gratuitously used by developers with no html standards based alternative (which is stupid to say the least) so Flash gets a bad rap but when it's done well, it blends right in. There's a reason why Yahoo, Gmail, youtube, vimeo, etc. all use flash.
How is using what's often times necessary a crutch? Trying putting any kind of multimedia on your website or handling reliable file uploads and you'll quickly see why you need Flash to reach the broadest audience. Developers have been shouting to the W3C for years for what we need and HTML5 still doesn't address much of the stuff you'd rely on Flash for.
Sadly, most Flash use is gratuitously used by developers with no html standards based alternative (which is stupid to say the least) so Flash gets a bad rap but when it's done well, it blends right in. There's a reason why Yahoo, Gmail, youtube, vimeo, etc. all use flash.
A is jump
Nov 27, 02:08 PM
If you think the stereo mixes are good, you NEED to find a copy of the mono mixes. They are much better, and much more in keeping with the original vision of the songs. The Beatles (and Martin/Emerick/others) largely ignored the stereo mixes until the late 60s' because it wasn't a popular format. In some cases, the mono mixes are drastically different than the stereo. And THAT was the way the songs were originally intended.
The word "remix" has taken on a bad connotation lately. The songs shouldn't be "rearranged" (as is the common understanding of "remix"), but the actual elements need re-balancing, mostly in the area of placement in the stereo field (as others have pointed out). Plus the actual sonic quality of the CDs is poor, and the mixes, as they stand today, need to be remastered in higher quality digital.
I agree and disagree.
agree that the mono mixes are better. but leave the stereo ones alone. they can remaster them if they want... but I dont think the actual mixes should be messed with. I certainly dont trust Sir Paul to be sitting in front of the mixing console saying to George martin "hey, can we turn up the sap?" if all the beatles were alive, maybe. but I'd rather them release the albums with both Stereo and mono mixes on them. like Beach boys did with Pet sounds (and its still only 12.99)
The word "remix" has taken on a bad connotation lately. The songs shouldn't be "rearranged" (as is the common understanding of "remix"), but the actual elements need re-balancing, mostly in the area of placement in the stereo field (as others have pointed out). Plus the actual sonic quality of the CDs is poor, and the mixes, as they stand today, need to be remastered in higher quality digital.
I agree and disagree.
agree that the mono mixes are better. but leave the stereo ones alone. they can remaster them if they want... but I dont think the actual mixes should be messed with. I certainly dont trust Sir Paul to be sitting in front of the mixing console saying to George martin "hey, can we turn up the sap?" if all the beatles were alive, maybe. but I'd rather them release the albums with both Stereo and mono mixes on them. like Beach boys did with Pet sounds (and its still only 12.99)
Unspeaked
Nov 29, 09:17 AM
Paul McCartney is quite a jerk. I wouldn't want to see Steve Jobs insult himself by appearing with him.
Apple Corps breed, inspire creativity? Geewhiz, I don't know whether that's the case... enough LSD and that helps :mad:
Honestly I like some Beatles songs but this is the most overrated band in the history of mankind. Even Cat Stevens and Steely Dan turned out much better.
Well, it appears someone's certainly looking for some venomous exchanges on the MacRumors forums...
Apple Corps breed, inspire creativity? Geewhiz, I don't know whether that's the case... enough LSD and that helps :mad:
Honestly I like some Beatles songs but this is the most overrated band in the history of mankind. Even Cat Stevens and Steely Dan turned out much better.
Well, it appears someone's certainly looking for some venomous exchanges on the MacRumors forums...
toddybody
May 5, 08:04 AM
IDK why iOS updates have to be a full OS download...if they manage to compartmentalize the update and allow smaller packages, then wifi updates will rock:cool:
milo
Sep 12, 04:22 PM
Full screen playback of videos now has Quicktime-style translucent controls.
You can properly tag TV shows.
But unfortunately, it looks like there's no way to edit video info for more than one file at a time. Bummer, since I have dozens of TV episodes I'd like to have tagged correctly. I guess maybe either a future update, or hopefully a Doug's script?
This is exactly what I'm trying to figure out: how to find the music videos I've downloaded. Ones that came with an album purchase (as a bonus) are in "Movies". Ones I downloaded separately are just mixed in with "Music" and not distinguished except by the little TV icon.
I'm not sure how one would quickly find their music videos except for manually looking for each one and creating their own playlist with just music videos. Is there a better way?
iTunes puts Music Videos in with music. You can change that, select your file, hit command I and select the video tab. If you want it to show up under Movies or TV, just change it in the menu that appears.
You can properly tag TV shows.
But unfortunately, it looks like there's no way to edit video info for more than one file at a time. Bummer, since I have dozens of TV episodes I'd like to have tagged correctly. I guess maybe either a future update, or hopefully a Doug's script?
This is exactly what I'm trying to figure out: how to find the music videos I've downloaded. Ones that came with an album purchase (as a bonus) are in "Movies". Ones I downloaded separately are just mixed in with "Music" and not distinguished except by the little TV icon.
I'm not sure how one would quickly find their music videos except for manually looking for each one and creating their own playlist with just music videos. Is there a better way?
iTunes puts Music Videos in with music. You can change that, select your file, hit command I and select the video tab. If you want it to show up under Movies or TV, just change it in the menu that appears.
gugy
Aug 3, 08:42 PM
Heh, yeah. I especially love all the posts about how it was a huge mistake for Apple to get into the mp3 player market (that the iPod would die a quick death and be a colossal failure).
I think that is the problem when we buy so much into the speculation and hype - Apple releases something that, on the surface, is boring (i.e. "WTF?!?!?!? It's just an MP3 player and not some revolutionary new device?!!?!?!?"), but which has a much greater chance of success than some of the more out there stuff we want them to do. As a former Newton user, for example, I would be ecstatic if Apple did release a Newton 3000 or something, but I also realize that there is a good reason they aren't doing that - there still just doesn't seem to be a widespread market for PDA's at this point. So an MP3 player might be boring, but it turned out to be a very smart move for Apple.
That just say to you how important an amazing Steve Jobs is. The man has the talent to foresees what will be a hit and what won't be.
We are luck to have him and Apple together. I remember when he was not behind Apple and how things were bad. I am glad he is there now.
The truth is what seems to be the logical thing for us might not be for him, so, I rather have him tell me that.
I hope he will stay at Apple for long, long time.
I think that is the problem when we buy so much into the speculation and hype - Apple releases something that, on the surface, is boring (i.e. "WTF?!?!?!? It's just an MP3 player and not some revolutionary new device?!!?!?!?"), but which has a much greater chance of success than some of the more out there stuff we want them to do. As a former Newton user, for example, I would be ecstatic if Apple did release a Newton 3000 or something, but I also realize that there is a good reason they aren't doing that - there still just doesn't seem to be a widespread market for PDA's at this point. So an MP3 player might be boring, but it turned out to be a very smart move for Apple.
That just say to you how important an amazing Steve Jobs is. The man has the talent to foresees what will be a hit and what won't be.
We are luck to have him and Apple together. I remember when he was not behind Apple and how things were bad. I am glad he is there now.
The truth is what seems to be the logical thing for us might not be for him, so, I rather have him tell me that.
I hope he will stay at Apple for long, long time.
riam
Apr 2, 11:22 PM
what we need is a bigger lens forget about MP i tather a 3 o 5 mega pixel with a larger lens and sensor than 8 mp with such a small lens the only thing it will get are extra large crappy images
JackieTreehorn
Nov 24, 07:50 AM
Clearly not yours either, son.
While there's some positive link between Mac-usage and intellect, you shouldn't take that information as meaning that posting on a Mac Forum gets you any intellect points.
So far, you've added nothing but focusing on the messenger. Which is typical, if knowledge about the topic of discussion is superficial at best.
For all to see.
Sleep tight under your Beatles blanket, son.
While there's some positive link between Mac-usage and intellect, you shouldn't take that information as meaning that posting on a Mac Forum gets you any intellect points.
So far, you've added nothing but focusing on the messenger. Which is typical, if knowledge about the topic of discussion is superficial at best.
For all to see.
Sleep tight under your Beatles blanket, son.
Zargot
Aug 8, 08:18 PM
*snip* Time Machine sounds like the utility in windose xp called systen restore and Spaces sounds like Expos�.
Time Machine seems more like the Shadow Copies on Server only on a local level rather than a network drive. (example attached)
I'm assuming they will use a form of Single Instance Storage with TM, so you have one copy of the file and only the deltas from any changes to reduce space requirements.
Time Machine seems more like the Shadow Copies on Server only on a local level rather than a network drive. (example attached)
I'm assuming they will use a form of Single Instance Storage with TM, so you have one copy of the file and only the deltas from any changes to reduce space requirements.
mdntcallr
Aug 24, 01:21 PM
Heh, after checking all of my batteries are fine. darn! (or good)
was sort of hoping to get a free update on the battery. but to be honest. would be a waste of time, as i will probably buy one of the new macbook pro's soon.
whenever the new models are released.
was sort of hoping to get a free update on the battery. but to be honest. would be a waste of time, as i will probably buy one of the new macbook pro's soon.
whenever the new models are released.
gekko513
Aug 2, 07:52 PM
Can't get the video to play right now, but the text sounds like Atheros writes the drivers for the built in Airport.
Sounds like a protocol bug to me if it works on different platforms and different vendors.
Hm, perhaps, the article is a bit vague on the subject.
Apple -- like many computer manufacturers -- outsources the development of its wireless device drivers to third parties. In Apple's case, the developer in question is Atheros, a company that devises drivers for a number of different wireless cards, each designed with drivers specific to the operating systems on which they will be used.
You're right, they make it sound like Atheros also writes the drivers for the built in Airport, but it doesn't say so specifically.
OS X ships with lots of default drivers for third party hardware, external wireless cards too, I'd imagine, and those could be the one we're talking about here.
Isn't the internal wireless device made by Intel? It's not sure Apple and Intel needs the help from Atheros to get drivers for that.
But even what the article says, I don't see why the demo would use a 3rd party wireless card if they could just as well have attacked the built in Airport.
Sounds like a protocol bug to me if it works on different platforms and different vendors.
Hm, perhaps, the article is a bit vague on the subject.
Apple -- like many computer manufacturers -- outsources the development of its wireless device drivers to third parties. In Apple's case, the developer in question is Atheros, a company that devises drivers for a number of different wireless cards, each designed with drivers specific to the operating systems on which they will be used.
You're right, they make it sound like Atheros also writes the drivers for the built in Airport, but it doesn't say so specifically.
OS X ships with lots of default drivers for third party hardware, external wireless cards too, I'd imagine, and those could be the one we're talking about here.
Isn't the internal wireless device made by Intel? It's not sure Apple and Intel needs the help from Atheros to get drivers for that.
But even what the article says, I don't see why the demo would use a 3rd party wireless card if they could just as well have attacked the built in Airport.