I've never seen any image degradation on EX1, P2/DVCPRO HD, or HDV footage, but I don't know about anything with less compression, like HDCAM, SI-2K, or RED ONE.

Heath

I had real problems with hdv footage, so I never really bothered to try with me EX footage.
From my experience it really softened the image.

That's weak no multi-core support! Why does Apple build 8-core Power Macs when their video editor can't utilize them? Video editing/ encoding is the most demanding type of thing you can do. It boggles the mind.

Because the multi-core technology coming in Snow Leopard is far more pervasive and easy to setup.

When Final Cut Studio is updated to leverage Grand Central Dispatch it's performance is going to jump markedly in my opinion.

Why was Compressor given multi core support many years ago? Even if FCP can't use multi-core what sense does it make that the export to Compressor won't use multi cores, considering Compressor is doing the encoding?

Are you saying FCP7 will support multi core as soon as you install Snow Leopard or are we going to have to wait another 2 years for the next version of FCP? Seems odd how far their pro apps are lagging behind their hardware. Mulitcore isn't a small issue considering FCP is for professionals with a price tag to match. It be like selling a turbo charged Ferrari and having the sales man explain to you can't use it.

>Why was Compressor given multi core support many years ago?

Because Compressor was written as a Cocoa native application ie specifically coded to leverage the advantages of the (modern) OS X operating system. FCP was, and still is, fundamentally based on its legacy (Carbon) code which was developed under and for OS 9.

>Are you saying FCP7 will support multi core as soon as you install Snow Leopard or are we going to have to wait another 2 years for the next version of FCP?

Snow Leopard is designed to offer a significant boost to any application, however the real show ponies, post release, will be those apps that are developed specifically to take advantage of the new OS architecture. FCP 7 as is, is not one of those apps ... but nonetheless there will still be advantages.

Undoubtedly the release of a Cocoa native rewrite of FCP is inevitable sooner or later, but whilst many fervently believed that "sooner" was the order of the day, and what's more that FCP 7 would be the first incarnation of such a rewrite, I think folks have to face the reality that "later" may be more realistic.

I was rocking FCP 1 on OS 8 and OS 8.5, but you're right--it's definitely built on Carbon.

heath

I find when a software company receives any significant degree of success in the market place, they lapse into complacency and try to wring every last dollar out of the code base. Reminds me how Premiere opened the door for FCP by holding on to its old code too long. Apple's trade in program sealed Premiere fate. Although Adobe has rewrote Premiere's code from scratch in 2003, they're still playing catch up.

The one shining example of the right way to do things is Adobe Photoshop. Every version they exceed my expectations. The interface is so intuitive, cutting edge, and yet doesn't destroy the continuity of the past. What their incentive? There isn't any photo editor that comes close and yet they aren't satisfied. FCP is by no means horrible but over the past few years they seem conservative compared to their competition. I get the feeling that FCP success has gone to their head.

Just wanted to say that the new ProRes 422 Proxy is terrific. The quality is great considering how low a bit rate it has. You can put three layers of HD on the timeline without rendering. It's good enough for pretty much any web video and maybe, if you're not too picky, for news broadcast, too.

Transcoding AVCHD to ProRes 422 Proxy is a little quicker than real time and the files are much smaller than before, too. Maybe 2x or 2.5x bigger than the original AVCHD files. This is compared to 8x or 10x bigger in Final Cut 6.

This one thing makes the upgrade worth it to me.

Just for the record... Let's keep in mind that Apple didn't write Final Cut Pro... Macromedia did. Apple bought it from them. So to expect them to successfully complete a 5 year development project while also completing updates every year to placate the user base is a little much. So if you can convince the whole user base to forego updates for the next 2 years, I bet they can get it all done without much problem.

For the record... I want both a full new version rewritten from the ground up, and updates every 6-12 months... I just don't think it's realistic.

Makes no sense. I expect that Apple didn't buy the software alone but also hired many if not all the people that were working on it at Macromedia.

But hey, Final Cut is far from broken so it's not that people are unhappy. I just think everyone expected a little bit more after a two year wait and 10.6 around the corner. But you can't complain about Apple's update plan. People who believe the new FCS is not for them can just wait and update to whatever comes next for $299. Now that's great customer service.

I see a lot of requests that show there's a chasm between those who use Final Cut Studio and those who understand the basic architecture of the underlying OS.

"Where's the 64-bit support?" would never be asked by anyone that knows that OS X Leopard doesn't support 64-bit throughout. Snow Leopard brings the first 64-bit kernel through GUI to OS X

Multiprocessor support is in Leopard but Apple has spent "considerable" effort to work on a new way of handling multicore computers without extensive coding effort from developers in Snow Leopard.

We certainly haven't seen the last of Final Cut Studio updates. Once Apple got to jettison the PPC support they gained more ability to leverage a single codebase tailored for Intel.

FCP 7 is just like OS X Snow Leopard: Instead of cramming in a ton of new features, they're perfecting the existing ones. Sure there seems to be a few things that are less than perfect, but I like that they are strengthening the core items.

Heath

Its difficult divine their development decisions behind the scenes but I must say I've become skeptical about what they can and can't do, after watching how they handled Blu-Ray authoring. I'm judging them from an end user stand point and comparing their development progress to their peers to their own past updates. I believe that is a fair way to look at things.

If you're selling 8 core cpu computers targeted at video editing, I don't think its unrealistic to expect their software to utilize the hardware they are selling. Multi core has been around for awhile, in fact I don't believe they even currently offer a single core computer.

From a user interface stand point, they have done little to innovate FCP. The handling of text and in particular credits is truly awful. I'm just left with the impression they started off with a nice product and added nice features over the years but really haven't broken out of the initial mold. I didn't realize FCP was acquired from Macromedia but it makes more sense why they haven't done anything out of the box with it.

I know it sounds like I hate FCP, that's not the case. I'm just exerciser my dissatisfaction after waiting 2 years for this update.

I did upgrade to FCP3 the same day of the release mostly for one reason, to be able to use the Tangentdevices Wave control surface. I´ve got it some month ago because the manufacturer wrongly claimed support for color (but the version 1 of color had no support for it, later they corrected the info in their web site).
Anyway, even if the control surface mapper plugin is in beta and they need to fix some small things that will make the device much more flexible, it is a pleasure to work in color with a control surface that cost peanuts compared to other models (still not cheap). Overall color upgrade came with no big new things but some small and welcome fixes. For example: in version 1 if you make a new project and forget to change the frame rate in the setup room and import some footage to the timeline you are in big trouble since you cant change anymore (it happened to me to work for two days to realize that the frame rate was wrong). Now in version 1.5 it continue to be the same, you cant change FR but when you import the footage, the same as final cut, the system ask you to set the parameters if some is mismatched.
I have to try to see if they fixed another big issue: if you install a second graphic card the scopes doesnt work anymore.
The issue with Gzip hanging it seems better but not completely fixed.
Compressor seems to be the same, heavy and slow to respond on a mac pro 8 processors, but overall working.
The show waveform in FC seems to be way much more responsive and faster.
The better markers is a good new feature as well as a better time remap.
I will report as i gain more knowledge about the new bugs (or old not fixed)

Confirmed!! The issue with the double graphic card and Color is solved!!!!
Now i can use the Cintiq tablet with other applications and even in color to draw masks!!!!

True. But Snow Leopard is 64-bit and totally rewritten. This new FCS isn't. So unless Apple releases a major free update in the near future, your comparison doesn't hold.

I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying/comparing... Snow Leopard is 64-bit but Apple for the most part focused on strengthening existing features in the next version of OS X, and I think that's what Apple did with Final Cut Pro 7--take what's strong and make it better, like ProRes, etc. Plus add some cool new features.

Now, 4-bit and FCP 7 is a whole different story, and we don't know what Apple has up their sleeve. And they aren't talking.

Heath

We are talking about the same thing.

What I tried to say was that if Apple release Snow Leopard without the 64-bit architecture, grandcentral and Open CL... everyone would be upset and dissapointed.

And that is what happened with this new Final Cut Studio. Weird timing, nobody did see it coming before Snow Leopard's release and the improvements are subtle, welcome but not groundbreaking or game changing.

I do like the new FCP 8. The new markers alone are worth the upgrade for me!

Think about this in terms of home renovation.

Would you paint at the same time you are putting up drywall?

Apple is taking things in step. Leopard has had 7 point release updates
and is stable and running millions of Macs. It's the proper test bed for delivering
a new Final Cut Studio. That way any bugs that creap up are likely due to FCS
code and not OS X.

Apple has multi core support in Leopard and that's what Compressor and other apps use.
Snow Leopard though has Grand Central Dispatch and where the "magic" comes in GCD is
in its ability to handle multi core computers with very little management by the developer.

Basically the developer defines the dependencies between data and with a little code here and there the app is now tapping into the "brain" that GCD is. The beautiful part of this seems to be that Apple should be able to tweak GCD making it smarter without the developer having to change any code.

Apple has a few options now. They can hold off and let Snow Leopard mature a bit and work on a sizable update to FCS which taps into GCD and OpenCL and brings forth 64-bit support. I think these "engine" updates will keep most happy. I expect the UI to get polished up for FCS 4. Why?

Well because Apple has been working towards making OS X "Resolution Independent" which means all UI widgets scale to user defined settings. The problem is that the dominant forms of icons and other stuff don't lend themselves to smooth resizing...yet.

FCS 4 will likely have a new UI and will (will future updates) tap into 10.7 which should be here in a couple of years and usher in a more unified UI overall.

Heath is correct. Snow Leopard fixes the engine and the next OS will fix the sheetmetal.

FCS 3 fixes the engine and FCS 4 will fix the sheetmetal.

I have to say working with EX XDCAM footage, the log and transfer seems faster and less buggy. I used to have problems finding folders that where on external disks before

"Weird timing" is the perfect two word description of this FCS version.

Apple produce in me a love/hate relation. I love most of everything they do, but I always feel they never really try to give you the 100% in the computers or pro-apps. Their computers always need more RAM, HD capacity and GPU power. This round of new pro-apps is a joke, unless when Snow Leopard is released they put out a .1 update that REALLY ACCELERATE things.

My first mac was a G4 733Mhz with a Superdrive. I could have bought a nice used car with the money I paid for it, but it could do DV>MPEG2 nearly at realtime. Now I have an iMac 2Ghz Dual 2 Core. It does DV>MPEG2 at half of realtime. For me it's pretty disappointing, I would expect faster results.

Now if I buy a Mac Pro to get a x1.5-x2 increase over my iMac I would be disappointed the same, an 8 core should be at least x3.5 faster than a 2 core of the same clock-speed in raw computing power, as Compressor is (or should be!).

I would really prefer Apple to be the best computer brand, instead of being the one which makes more profit...

This is an unpopular over-simplified sentiment, but Apple is not a computer company, its a consumer electronics company that makes the majority of its profit from iPhones, iTunes, iPopds, etc..

Its surprising that they have not either discontinued the Pro Apps development (Shake) or sold it. It must be increasingly difficult for Apple to defend such a high expenditure on its professional products for such a low return on investment compared to its consumer brands.

Xavier, I like the fact that you compared Apple's progress to its older technology, I have not used Macs that long so I couldn't make the comparison. I share your love/hate relationship with Apple. I wish the best for them. but fear the worst...

Pro Apps are doing fine, overall. I got word that FCP now has around 50% of the editing market share.

Heath

Looks great to me.
Is there or will there be any way just to update Final Cut 6-7 at the least that would be all I would want.
Maybe Motion too.
Rather than paying $300 for the full update when I dont use Color, Shake, and the DVD thing anyway.

Sorry no, all upgrades from here on out are for the entire FCS suite. As Apple no longer gives users the option to purchase individual applications. And overall the price of the entire suite at regular price is far below what it used to cost for all of the individual apps separately.

Also, speaking of apps, just because you don;t use an applications today, doesn't meant that you won't have the need or desire to use it tomorrow. I used to use LiveType for my titling and never opened Motion. Now with LiveType gone, I had a desire to learn to use Motion for my titling, and it wasn't as hard as I thought it would be, and produced better overall results.

Granted the upgrade could have easily been an update, but $299 isn't a lot to pay.

I have difficulty believing that such an old computer could render DV to MPEG 2 nearly at real time. I don't see why you would be lying, and sometimes I'm dissapointed with FCP's need to render lots of things before it can show it to you, where Premiere Pro does a much better job. But a G4 doing DV to MPEG 2 at nearly realtime? Are you sure you are making a fair comparison?
But could anyone explain this? It's a very interesting statement, I would like to see it backed up with some information or explanation.

Thanks.

I think there's some confusion somewhere. I know my Quicksilver 867Mhz was very slow in rendering to mpeg2 for DVD. Apple's early encoders weren't very good at all. In fact, I ended up building a PC and using Cinemacraft basic, which did run in real time (even on a crappy AMD K6 processor).

Someone did sell a PCI encoder card that allowed for real-time DV-mpeg2 encoding.

I heard similar numbers. I read a a sales number for Final Cut a while back... not sure if it was 12 million or 120 million times. I don't think that Apple will sell its pro tools. Logic, Final Cut and Aperture are all doing fine as far as I know. Shake was just a rarity. And as mentioned, Shake was never an Apple product to begin with. Apple bought it and didn't do anything with it untill last week, when they killed it.

I do agree that the Pro Apps most likely aren't very profitable for Apple compared to the iPhone or iPod and the potential market is much smaller. But the same goes for OS X itself. As long as something ships a lot of Mac's, Apple is happy.

True, if they kill off their Pro apps, it will be even harder to sell the Mac Pros than it already is.
PS I am aware that a lot of people probably run Mac Pros without Apple´s Pro apps, but still

I love how some people act like they understand Apple's sales and revenue breakdown and then turn around and say they can't imagine why Apple continues to develop software such as pro apps and that Apple is an electronics company now and not/shouldn't/won't be in the computer/software world much longer. In all fairness, no one but a handful of people deep inside Apple know how much revenue comes from each division and it does a disservice to spread info about Apple killing pro apps. Common sense says that Mac computers have been selling very very well and increasing market share. You can bet that pro apps (or the dream of many people to use/be a pro user) drives the computer sales.

It seems like every thread someone spews that line out. Maybe I'm wrong? Perhaps Apple will sell off pro apps to Activision who will make it available on PCs, thus people like me will never own a Mac, spend thousands on Pro App upgrades, and buy new Macs to run the latest version of Final Cut, etc. Brilliant, I wish Final Cut was on PC, they cost much much less.

The total cost of ownership of a PC isn't much lower as a Mac. You need to get anti virus software, spyware, get a Windows Professional edition license. My Mac's have been running for over a year now without any real maintenance. I use Tinkertool system to repair premissions now and then and do monthly maintenance (via the script) but that's all. I also have a Windows computer and they only work if you finetune them and that costs a lot of time. And time is money in our industry. Windows 7 Ultimate is going to cost you like 300 EURO while you get Snow Leopard for like 129 EURO. You have already saved 170 EURO.

He is probably talking about the cost involved in just purchasing the PC. For instance, all of the Microsoft commercials that show how for $2,000 you could get a Mac that doesn't fit a persons needs, but at about $600 you can buy a PC.

The G4 I bought costed 1000$ more because it had a Superdrive, the first DVD-R burner. Each DVD-R costed 12€, 16$ and sometimes the burning failed, it wasn't easy to be a pioneer! ;-DD

I hope some other "old skool" boy could confirm this. I am talking just about the DV to MPEG2 (M2V) creation. It took like 35 minutes to convert 30 minutes. Of course they tweak their code to improve rendering times.

Improving the code is all Snow Leopard is about, that's why it's so dissapointing to see a FCS and Logic version presented two months before Snow Leopard!!!

IIRC, the big shock came when I switched to an Intel MacBook Pro from the G4 PowerBook (bought in 2005?). I would budget about 3.5 hours for a half hour programme using 2-Pass on a G4. I remember setting up such a render on the new MacBook Pro (first generation), thinking I could pop out and run some errands whilst it rendered. I was faffing around for around 40 mins or so before getting in the car - I just checked the progress to see if it was going okay. The fact that it was completed was mind-boggling.

But now we have Blu-Ray to contend with. "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose" and all that.

While we're talking about renders and encoding, what in the world keeps Apple from making FCS fully multi-processor aware? Using Compressor and it's distributed processing I can encode 3 to 4 times faster than through FCS itself. This is stupid. If I could harness that same power for renders in FCS I'd be a happy boy but nope, can't do it and it makes no freaking sense to me. If they'd ever get that right I'd suddenly have a much faster editing machine. Why give me 8 cores if I can't use them fully?

I think it's the opposite of a lot of people have Mac Pros and no Apple pro apps--I think these days more people have laptops (and iMacs/Mac minis) running pro apps than they do Mac Pros.

I think that's one reason why we have the new flavors of ProRes--we can now edit really high-end stuff (RED, HDCAM SR, etc.) with ProRes, on laptops, etc., without bogging down the system.

Heath

While we're talking about renders and encoding, what in the world keeps Apple from making FCS fully multi-processor aware?

Ethan, as has already been explained, some parts of FCS are based on legacy code that predates our modern multi-core hardware and multi-everything operating systems, and those parts (such as a large proportion of FCP) require a major rewrite to properly leverage the power of these newfangled computers. Most observers believe that such a rewrite is indeed happening but many had also sincerely believed that FCP7 would be the first public fruition of that rewrite. Sadly not. But nonetheless Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6) is due soon and that should bring a significant advantage to all our apps regardless of architecture. Something to be going on with until a true OS X native rewrite hits the shelves.

Why give me 8 cores if I can't use them fully?

Well as you note yourself, not all the apps are mired in old code.

I dislike reviving old threads. :-) But for what it's worth, a colleague who is an older, non-traditional university student attending to pursue additional degrees, tells me that FCS 3 academic pricing at her university costs USD $299 for the whole kit-and-kaboodle.

So I'm not sure where the $899 price came from. I'm guessing either the school Scott mentioned hadn't yet updated their pricing web page or that they weren't eligible for the full academic discount?

I've heard vague mentions elsewhere in the past that academic discount pricing was partially tied to volume of sales an higher education institute engaged in. The school my colleague attends does high volume of Apple-related sales on campus from what I've heard in passing. Food for thought, if nothing else...

Yep, same price at UCSD where I work and I suspect many other campuses.