PDA

View Full Version : OT: Apple Motion (new compositing app)



Beamtracer
04-18-2004, 04:19 PM
Apple has just released a new compositing application.

It's called Motion.
http://www.apple.com/motion/

http://a772.g.akamai.net/7/772/51/0b4ef92139f1ea/www.apple.com/motion/images/indextop1_04192004.jpghttp://a772.g.akamai.net/7/772/51/36c7ba7dfd93b1/www.apple.com/motion/images/indextop2_04182004.gif

Other major Apple releases at NAB are:
Xsan
http://www.apple.com/xsan/

Final Cut Pro HD
http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/
(Does FCP-HD mean that the video capture card for digitizing is now dead?)

policarpo
04-18-2004, 05:22 PM
that looks sweet and it's dirt cheap.

can't wait to hear a review of it.:D

Beamtracer
04-18-2004, 06:53 PM
http://a272.g.akamai.net/7/272/51/e0f3e78bcab561/www.apple.com/motion/images/indexcallouts04122004.jpg
I'm trying to work out whether this new compositing app is a standard layer based timeline, or a procedural tree / nodal style one.

tokyo drifter
04-18-2004, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
I'm trying to work out whether this new compositing app is a standard layer based timeline, or a procedural tree / nodal style one. Why do you think that it might be nodal based? I've read all the info on the site and it doesn't mention node based compositing. Maybe I missed something? Looks great, anyways. And does anyone know how much FCP HD is going to cost?

Beamtracer
04-18-2004, 07:26 PM
I thought it may be nodal based purely because most new compositing apps are. Maybe they went for a standard layer approach for ease of learning.

Originally posted by tokyo drifter
[BAnd does anyone know how much FCP HD is going to cost? [/B] I'm sure Final Cut Pro HD will cost less than competing HD systems, such as Avid's "DS" which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It's now cheap to make High Definition video using Apple's HD-over-Firewire.

stef
04-18-2004, 08:31 PM
is it 8-bit or 16-bit app, Beamtracer?

Beamtracer
04-18-2004, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by stef
is it 8-bit or 16-bit app, Beamtracer? I was trying to find that out myself, Stef.

Apple claims Motion will seamlessly hand media to and from Final Cut Pro HD. Most people use FCP in either 8bpc or 10bpc mode.

So, I don't know!

Motion's price of US $299 sets a new low price-point for compositing apps.

stef
04-18-2004, 09:28 PM
If it is 8-bit - it is a real "bad" news, beam, if one has to take a cue from your former [negative] posts about the 8-bit DFX.

Then $290 will not help either, since DFX has been offered to us free...

I hope it is a fully professional 16-bit app:D

Thanks, though, for trying hard Beatracer, and for your incessant promoting of Apple Computer on this forum.

Beamtracer
04-18-2004, 10:35 PM
Don't worry Stef. I still recommend using a compositing application greater than 8bpc for high quality work.

I'm just pointing out that here is a new compositing app that's just been launched on the scene. It's not that often that a new compositing app arrives.

Is it good? I haven't used it so I don't know. Only announced today, so there's not a lot of info available yet. So, praise it or criticize it, or pick it to pieces if you want.

Its retail price still sets a new low entry point for compositors.



By the way, DXF+ wasn't free. Newtek had to pay Eyeon to include it in the bundle. That fee was passed on to you! You chose to pay for DXF+ as an alternative to paying for a paper manual. Those who buy LW8 after it is released get a paper manual instead.

tokyo drifter
04-18-2004, 10:42 PM
I just realized that FCP HD is actually FCP 5. Looks like Apple has succomb to adding letters to the ends of their products now (i.e. ME, XP, MX, CS). Great...:(

wacom
04-18-2004, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Don't worry Stef. I still recommend using a compositing application greater than 8bpc for high quality work.

I'm just pointing out that here is a new compositing app that's just been launched on the scene. It's not that often that a new compositing app arrives.

Is it good? I haven't used it so I don't know. Only announced today, so there's not a lot of info available yet. So, praise it or criticize it, or pick it to pieces if you want.

Its retail price still sets a new low entry point for compositors.



By the way, DXF+ wasn't free. Newtek had to pay Eyeon to include it in the bundle. That fee was passed on to you! You chose to pay for DXF+ as an alternative to paying for a paper manual. Those who buy LW8 after it is released get a paper manual instead.

I'm glad that Mac people will be getting an alternative to AE and Shake. Granted it may not be floating point depth etc. but it's a far better price for what you might get Vs the 8bit version of AE. I don't think it's fair to compare it to DFX+ though as it lacks support for 3D buffers and such...but it does have a built in partical engine...I'd say it's targeted at the 8bit AE and Combustion crowd...

Good news none the less.

CaptainKirk
04-19-2004, 12:03 AM
Finally, the beauty of HD with the simplicity of DV??????
It's now cheap to make High Definition video using Apple's HD-over-Firewire.

Finally ? What???

Vegas on PC has been able to do this for about a year, no hardware necessary. All done in software.

More lies from apple and their favorite LW forums peddler.

Hey Beam, how is your dual 2.6 Ghz G5 you said you'd have in January???

How about that dual 3Ghz one coming this summer ( in your dreams ). Has the notorious noise, crackling and hissing from all the G5 fans and power supply driven you crazy yet?

And finally, what does this have to do with Lightwave?

I suggest we keep crap like this where it belongs.

And DFX was free, actually since I upgraded from 6.5, and got to use DFX and LW 7.5 for a year you could say that I got DFX+ and Lightwave 8 for FREE. After all I only paid for 7.5

Now , that was a deal.

Beamtracer
04-19-2004, 01:49 AM
Hehehe!!! Hello Captain Kirk (alias Panini). Welcome back to the forum. We've missed you!

Many Lightwavers use a compositing application. All my 3D work gets composited. When a new compositing app gets released it is of interest to those who create 3D animations.

I was unaware that Vegas could work with Panasonic's DVC-ProHD format over a year ago, without a video capture card. I must have missed the demonstrations!:p

I'm not necessarily going to run out and buy Final Cut Pro HD or Motion. If you want to say why you think they are "crap", feel free! :)

Ade
04-19-2004, 02:41 AM
Im starting to make a discovery here, I actually believe Panini aka/ Captain Qwirk IS ACTUALLY Beamtracer.

I believe Beam you have a form of schizophenia you are unaware of and he is your alternate personality.

I mean he totally knows u intimately and goes opposite to everything u say...



Just Kidding Beam, BUT yeah Panini seriously now if u actually did some work you could make some money and afford a mac...

jamesl
04-19-2004, 02:50 AM
Hmmm. Looks like Apple is trying to screw Adobe yet again. Please, please, PLEASE... let's not hear complaints when Adobe drops support for Mac versions of Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere, etc. It will happen, you watch.

j

AntAT
04-19-2004, 08:08 AM
..........

Limbus
04-19-2004, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
I thought it may be nodal based purely because most new compositing apps are. Maybe they went for a standard layer approach for ease of learning.
Why do you think that a layer aproach is easyer to learn than node based? I think the opposite is true.

Florian

Aegis
04-19-2004, 09:59 AM
PLEASE... let's not hear complaints when Adobe drops support for Mac versions of Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere, etc. It will happen, you watch.

And then Apple will wind up in court being prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Dept over antitrust violations for running a monopoly...

I'm wondering when (not if) this'll happen actually - one of the main reasons Micro$oft wound up in court was the bundling of I.E. with Windows thus shutting out alternate browser vendors - now Apple has Safari I don't see anyone crying foul... yet...

bloontz
04-19-2004, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Aegis
And then Apple will wind up in court being prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Dept over antitrust violations for running a monopoly...

I'm wondering when (not if) this'll happen actually - one of the main reasons Micro$oft wound up in court was the bundling of I.E. with Windows thus shutting out alternate browser vendors - now Apple has Safari I don't see anyone crying foul... yet...

I don't think apple is going to be accused of being a monopoly any time soon.

kmscottmoore
04-19-2004, 10:30 AM
Actually, Adobe has already dropped the Mac version of Premiere. I, too, would not be suprised to see After Effects next. (I wasn't all that said to see Premiere go, but some of these other things are disturbing.)


Prior to the launch of the G5, Adobe was encougaging users to go PC. (In one of their Classroom in a Book thingies) I think the writing is on the wall.
It is somewhat sad to see Adobe part from Apple. Particularly since nearly all of thier apps started on the Mac.

Adobe never even tried a Mac version of their DVD authoring software.

But, this feud cuts both ways. I was at Photoshopworld last year when Adobe announced their PC-only iPhoto knockoff, Photoshop Album. Some people in the crowd actually gasped when they showed that you could add sound to slideshows. I laughed.

Oh well, you guys had better start learning the GIMP before it's too late.
http://www.gimp.org/macintosh/
(unfortunately it requires Panther)

Anybody have a good alternative to Illustrator? (The last couple of versions have sucked anyway)

I'm also somewhat disappointed to see that my barely over a year old dual 1.25 G4 isn't up to snuff as far as specs go on this new app. (Particularly the Radeon 9000 video card) It also requires Panther; I still have Jag-wire (Jaguar in Stevespeak)

Red_Oddity
04-19-2004, 11:29 AM
How sure are we this is 'like' AfterFX, it looks more like a motion graphics suite for FCP (like the new motion graphic suite for Avid MediaComposer Adrenaline 2)

Anyway, it's nice to see one company atleast trying to bring out some new software (something Adobe hasn't done for atleast the last 3 years...)

anieves
04-19-2004, 11:30 AM
I dbout Premiere had the user base that AFX and Photoshop has on the Mac.

Time will tell...

nawDsign
04-19-2004, 03:04 PM
tokyo drifter : I just realized that FCP HD is actually FCP 5. Looks like Apple has succomb to adding letters to the ends of their products now (i.e. ME, XP, MX, CS). Great...

Actually, FCPHD is not FCP5 but FCP4.5. And yes it's a FREE upgrade to FCP4 owners. There's not much added just the real-time HD editing. Need more info on Motion to pursuade me to buy it.

Beamtracer
04-19-2004, 03:41 PM
Apple's been aggressively moving into motion graphics (Shake, FCP-HD, DVD-SP, Motion etc). Apple isn't competing against professional paint and vector programs like Photoshop or Illustrator. I think the reason for this is that motion graphics requires powerful computers, and generates sales in top-end computers.

I don't think there are too many Final Cut Pro users who would want to swap it for Adobe Premiere.

Originally posted by Aegis
And then Apple will wind up in court being prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Dept over antitrust violations for running a monopoly...

I'm wondering when (not if) this'll happen actually - one of the main reasons Micro$oft wound up in court was the bundling of I.E. with Windows thus shutting out alternate browser vendors - now Apple has Safari I don't see anyone crying foul... yet... Why would Apple be accused of running a monopoly for including the Safari web browser? You must not know that Safari is open source, in a similar way to Linux. Apple doesn't control the code.

MS made threats to PC makers (ie Dell / HP / Gateway etc) that if they didn't install Internet Explorer they'd lose their Windows license. Same threats were made to stop PC manufacturers bundling a Quicktime player with Windows PCs.


Originally posted by Ade
Im starting to make a discovery here, I actually believe Panini aka/ Captain Qwirk IS ACTUALLY Beamtracer.

I believe Beam you have a form of schizophenia you are unaware of and he is your alternate personality.
Hehehe! "Precious, my precious";)

tokyo drifter
04-19-2004, 04:06 PM
I'm really happy that Sony has released Vegas 5 and DVDA 2 today! Network rendering!!!! And support for HD through firewire like FCP HD. I guess I'm not going to upgrade to FCP this year. FCP and DVD SP are very powerful and great products but Vegas and DVDA do everything I need and quickly.

Beamtracer
04-19-2004, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by tokyo drifter
I'm really happy that Sony has released Vegas 5 and DVDA 2 today! Network rendering!!!! And support for HD through firewire like FCP HD. I may be wrong, but I don't believe Sony's Vegas can do it.

Vegas can take in HD resolution material, can spit it back out to tape, and can also work with Firewire. But there is a difference with what Apple is doing.

Final Cut Pro HD can take HD material directly from the camera, via Firewire, straight to the hard drive. No video capture card required. No down-converting to mini-DV.

This is a major advance that will dramatically reduce the cost of making High Definition video. I don't think Sony's systems can match it.

It's a change big enough to spell the end of Sony's flagship Digital Betacam broadcast videotape format. I believe that FCP-HD will become even more dominant in broadcast.

tokyo drifter
04-19-2004, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Final Cut Pro HD can take HD material directly from the camera, via Firewire, straight to the hard drive. Are you sure about that? Maybe I read the press release wrong but it sounds like you have to get a VTR to send HD video through firewire.

Quote from the press release (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/apr/18panasonic.html) :

"Together, Panasonic and Apple are bringing HD over FireWire capabilities to desktop and mobile editing with Panasonic’s new AJ-HD1200A, the first HD production VTR to offer a FireWire interface, and Apple’s newly-announced Final Cut Pro HD professional video editing software, enabling mass adoption of HD resolution images on the desktop, and even on PowerBooks."


And HD is still a bit pricy:

“With high definition now available on the desktop with Power Mac G5 and the AJ-HD1200A, the investment necessary for HD editing is dramatically reduced,” said Stuart English, vice president of Marketing, Panasonic Broadcast. “For example, the hardware and software needed to equip a full function HD editing suite with over 100 hours of 24fps HD on-line storage is less than $50,000.”

And that doesn't include the price of the camera. :eek:

Beamtracer
04-19-2004, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by tokyo drifter
it sounds like you have to get a VTR to send HD video through firewire. It doesn't matter whether the source is a HD camera or HD VTR.

The capture card has gone (or at least becomes optional).
The SDI video connectors have gone.
No need to translate the signal (as all other systems do)

It is a revolution in the production of HDTV. It's cost is a fraction of other systems.

tokyo drifter
04-19-2004, 08:04 PM
Umm, Beamtracer, Panasonic's DVCPRO HD camera (AJ-HDC27) doesn't have a firewire port . You have to get the VTR to output through firewire.

Let's see DVCPRO HD camera, that's $65,000. A special VTR, probably around $30,000-$40,000 (they haven't released the pricing yet, but for comparison their other HD VTR is $49,000). $10,000 for the best G5 and cinema monitor. Wow, only 100K, that's like a couple thousand or so cheaper then other solutions. This is revolutionary. :rolleyes:

js33
04-19-2004, 08:14 PM
What about all the HDV cameras soon to be on the market? I assume they will have Firewire built in.

Cheers,
JS

tokyo drifter
04-19-2004, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by js33
What about all the HDV cameras soon to be on the market? I assume they will have Firewire built in.

Cheers,
JS The JVC HDV cameras are already supported on the PC through firewire, but FCP HD doesn't support it natively yet. They're working on it.

Also it looks like Boxx has teamed up with Cineform to release a Realtime HD solution with a new visually lossless HD codec. Here's the press release PDF: http://boxxtech.com/asp/get.asp?fid=2484 It seems to be a cheaper solution then FCP HD/ Panasonic VTR solution.

Beamtracer
04-19-2004, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by tokyo drifter
The JVC HDV cameras are already supported on the PC through firewire, but FCP HD doesn't support it natively yet. They're working on it.

Also it looks like Boxx has teamed up with Cineform to release a Realtime HD solution with a new visually lossless HD codec. Here's the press release PDF: http://boxxtech.com/asp/get.asp?fid=2484 It seems to be a cheaper solution then FCP HD/ Panasonic VTR solution.

What we're talking about are two different things. Amateur "HD" video, and true broadcast quality HD.

The Boxx / Cineform is a low bandwidth amateur / prosumer package. It operates on 25MB/second throughput, which is the same bandwidth as mini-DV.

Same issue with those single chip JVC "HD" mini-cameras. They are low-quality prosumer cameras, not suitable for broadcast use. They may be OK for consumers to make home movies, but JVC jumped the gun and released them before the DV-HD specification was complete (that the other manufacturers will adhere to).

What's being done with Final Cut Pro HD is different. This is high-bandwidth broadcast quality HD video that travels from videotape to hard drive without any format conversion. Apple is the only one doing this.

CaptainKirk
04-19-2004, 10:32 PM
FCP = year behind Vegas.

VEGAS = first all software, no need to render previews, no special hardware/capture rquired ( years ago )

You can do anything with HD in Vegas , and you could simply use JVC HDcam, Firewire and Vegas long before this FCP HDcrap.

With Sony's new upcoming HD camcorders , you can simply go HD for around $4500, about 10-20 times less than Apples "solution"

To be fair, I have never used FCP myself, but out of at least a dozen people who use Avids in TV production, there isn't a single one who after trying FCP wasn't severely disappointed and puzzled about what all the fuss is about.

It's all just hype, same as Beam's 2.6 ghz G5 that came out in January.

tokyo drifter
04-19-2004, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Same issue with those single chip JVC "HD" mini-cameras. They are low-quality prosumer cameras, not suitable for broadcast use. They may be OK for consumers to make home movies, but JVC jumped the gun and released them before the DV-HD specification was complete (that the other manufacturers will adhere to). I guess you didn't read JVC's new press release:

Three-CCD HDV camera for Broadcasters

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/press_res.jsp?tree=&model_id=MDL101476&itempath=&feature_id=08

It looks like Apple is "jumping the gun" too since they are planning to support this format.

Quote for apple.com: Support for HDV format. Apple has joined the growing list of companies planning to support JVC’s HDV format in future product releases. Final Cut Pro HD customers can start using HDV with Final Cut Pro today using third party products like Lumiere HDV and the Heuris Indie HD and Pro-Indie HD toolkits.

Beamtracer
04-19-2004, 10:57 PM
Tokyo Drifter: The JVC camera mentioned is a 25MB/s camera. The new 3CCD one is a nice camera, and a step up from the previous 1 chip model, but it is not a true broadcast quality camera, even though JVC may still try to sell it to regional news outlets.


Captain Kirk:
Dear Captain Kirk, my loyal fan. You didn't read my previous post (just above yours) about the difference between amateur and broadcast video.

You're talking about amateur / home video equipment. They run at 25MB/s bandwidth. The broadcast HD cameras run at a minimum 50MB/s, or more commonly 100MB/s. This is much higher bandwidth. Much higher quality.

Vegas is fine for the uses you suggest, but you won't be able to plug Sony broadcast HD equipment in, and copy the vision straight to the hard drive without translating it.

FCP-HD can do it. It changes everything.

tokyo drifter
04-19-2004, 11:05 PM
The JVC camera mentioned is also a 25MB/s camera. Beamtracer, what are you talking about? I don't see 25MBps mentioned anywhere in the JVC press release. Anyways, DVCPRO HD is only 5.8 - 14MBps.

EDIT: Okay, I just did some googling and found that HDV is 25Mbps (that's bits not bytes), although, who knows if this new HDV broadcast quality camera has a different bitrate.
Vegas is fine for the uses you suggest, but you won't be able to plug Sony broadcast HD equipment in, and copy the vision straight to the hard drive without translating it.

FCP-HD can do it. It changes everything. Don't forget to add in that VTR. The DVCPRO HD cameras do not have firewire out.

Beamtracer
04-19-2004, 11:22 PM
Here's an example of a true broadcast HD camera. This one from Panasonic uses the DVCpro HD tape format, and costs over $90,000:

http://www.panasonic.ca/images/English/broadcast/broadcast/HD/highdefinitionmain.jpg

DVCpro HD tape format burns tape up at 4 times the speed of mini-DV or DVcam. That means that instead of getting a record time of 60 minutes on a standard cassette (like on miniDV), you only get 15 minutes per tape. But... the quality is absolutely pristine.

True, the current camera hasn't got Firewire output, though the deck does. The FCP-HD system has only just been announced, so I expect that cameras will soon include Firewire 800 outputs. This kind of equipment is out of the realm of the casual user, but is still cheap compared to other broadcast equipment.

FCP-HD revolutionizes broadcast HD production.

tokyo drifter
04-19-2004, 11:46 PM
Yes DVCPRO HD is very nice, but I still don't see how it is revolutionary. Just because you don't need a card (currently, instead of a card you need an expensive VTR) doesn't really make too much of a drop in the overall price, it is still over 100K. Also, every major NLE supports editing of HD video, Apple wasn't the first to support it, they're just the only one that added HD to their name. I can see how this is good news for a TV station producer but that is a very very very small portion of the market.

On the other hand, HDV is very revolutionary in that it is the first affordable HD camera solution, every major company out there except I think Panasonic is backing the format and coming out with HDV cameras. Sony has been showing off a new HDV prototype at NAB and it's going to cost around $5000. HD for the people!!! w00t!

jamesl
04-20-2004, 12:40 AM
[i] Sony has been showing off a new HDV prototype at NAB and it's going to cost around $5000. HD for the people!!! w00t! [/B]

I know... can't wait to see what sort of employee discount I can get! Weee!

j

jin choung
04-20-2004, 12:52 AM
yawn....

yeah, fcp-hd is gonna be all alone in HD editing. no one else is gonna want to or have the ability to edit hd... if you want to edit hd, you're gonna have to go apple, you're gonna have to go hd.

i know that's not what you're sayin' bt but if not, what you're sayin' isn't much news.

if they're first... fine. but guess what, there will be others who will do it NEXT and more importantly for the likes of me... CHEAPER.

as for the topic of the thread though, i am jealous about the compositing app. i LIKE the price. incredible that apple actually decided to make SOMETHING cheaper....

jin

p.s. what the hell is a VTR? a card? and if the dvcpro hd doesn't have a firewire interface, what interface does it use to offload the data without translation?

and if/when hd becomes the standard, the interfaces will be built into every dell....

WizCraker
04-20-2004, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by jamesl
Hmmm. Looks like Apple is trying to screw Adobe yet again. Please, please, PLEASE... let's not hear complaints when Adobe drops support for Mac versions of Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere, etc. It will happen, you watch.

j

Haven't they all ready? Adobe keeps pulling products from the mac.

jamesl
04-20-2004, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by WizCraker
Haven't they all ready? Adobe keeps pulling products from the mac.

Who's zoomin' who? At least Adobe is left with 90% of the computing market(PCs) if Apples forces them out by releasing iMovie/FCP/Shake/Motion. What if Adobe gets REALLY pissed and starts limiting Postscript support? Somewhere, Bill Gates is laughing...

j

Beamtracer
04-20-2004, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by jin choung
p.s. what the hell is a VTR? a card? and if the dvcpro hd doesn't have a firewire interface, what interface does it use to offload the data without translation? Hey Jin. I'll tell you.

Older home video cassette recorders had a BNC video socket on the back where you'd connect the video cable to dub from one machine to another. You know the ones, where you'd have to push the cable in, then twist it to make it hold into position.

Professional digital video machines have a similar plug, but with a digital signal going through instead of analog. This socket is called an SDI connector (Serial Digital Interface). SDI is basically a streaming video format. Equipment with SDI connectors is generally very expensive.

If you have a broadcast video machine and want to transfer the vision to your computer, you must have a video capture card on your computer that has an SDI connector on it. Because SDI is only used for broadcast video (and is not used in the home) it is very expensive.

Panasonic's new DVCpro HD video machine has a Firewire800 port on the back of it, which can connect to a personal computer's Firewire ports, and doesn't need an SDI capture card or peripheral equipment.

It's a bit like what people have been doing with mini-DV video cameras for some years, except this time it is in broadcast quality (4x the quality of home video), which hasn't been done before. Home mini-DV transfers to your computer at 25MB/s. DVCpro HD is 100MB/s.

If you're not into broadcast equipment then it could be a yawn. Anyone who uses broadcast gear should be interested by this. Yes, other companies will one day follow what FCP-HD is doing, but Apple is first.

By the way, the term 'VTR' is just an abbreviation of videotape recorder. Maybe I should have said VCR.

Karmacop
04-20-2004, 04:07 AM
Adobe can't compete, I think that's their problem. All someone needs to do is create a modern 2d program to compete against photoshop and Adobe is dead. I don't know about anyone else, but I believe Photoshop is only used because people sre use to it, and there's nothing better. There's nothign better, because everyone tries to copy photoshop. Just my thoughts. Just so you know, I think Mirageis the answer, but it's missing a lot of things to compete with Photoshop.

Red_Oddity
04-20-2004, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Home mini-DV transfers to your computer at 25MB/s. DVCpro HD is 100MB/s.

Shouldn't that be 25Mbps and 100Mbps? Just nittpicking here, but other wise you might want to invest in a pretty fast RAID (like a Ciprio Fibrestore) system to go along with your compu...get to think of it, better do that anyway ;)

Red_Oddity
04-20-2004, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by Karmacop
Adobe can't compete, I think that's their problem. All someone needs to do is create a modern 2d program to compete against photoshop and Adobe is dead. I don't know about anyone else, but I believe Photoshop is only used because people sre use to it, and there's nothing better. There's nothign better, because everyone tries to copy photoshop. Just my thoughts. Just so you know, I think Mirageis the answer, but it's missing a lot of things to compete with Photoshop.

I know some programs, but i forgot the names of some so i'm having trouble finding them again, but here's some:

http://www.squirreldome.com/cyberop.htm
http://www.gimp.org/

Beamtracer
04-20-2004, 05:00 AM
Thanks, Red Oddity, I stand corrected. That's bits not bytes! ;)

Don't forget to add CinePaint (formally FilmGimp) to the list of Photoshop alternatives.


Originally posted by Karmacop
I don't know about anyone else, but I believe Photoshop is only used because people sre use to it, and there's nothing better. I'd agree with you, Karmacop. I've own Photoshop myself, but I must admit I often use a compositing application (AE) to work on still images. That's because compositing apps are non-destructive and in some ways more sensibly laid out.

Karmacop
04-20-2004, 05:04 AM
Yep, dog waffle is also very cool.

But it's not just the way it works, it's also the interface .. or am I the only one that hates the interface? :p

Red_Oddity
04-20-2004, 05:07 AM
That's usually the reason i don't switch, there's some really impressive programs out there...if only they just ripped off the good part of photoshop and kept it small....

jin choung
04-20-2004, 05:36 AM
right,

i know what 'vtr' means but it seemed like you were talking about it as an interface to the camera....

and

right,

so the camera is NOT going to the mac/fcp via sdi right? just firewire 800?

if that's the case... errrr... what's the big deal?

pcs have the new spec firewire cards as well... and if the gimmick is similar to DV, the compression/decompression is handled in camera... firewire is just a flamin' interface - a mere pipe.

so is the big trick that fcp has a .mov wrapper that will handle that data?

jin

Beamtracer
04-20-2004, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by jin choung
firewire is just a flamin' interface - a mere pipe. Yes. Firewire is just the pipe. The real technology is in the software. The difference is that this video flies down that pipe at 100Mbps and doesn't need to be translated to a different format to enable it to be recorded onto a hard drive.

Nobody has done this with 100Mbps video before.

Red_Oddity
04-20-2004, 07:55 AM
Sooo... let me get this straight then...'All' Apple have done then is made the HD-DV codec (or whatever those cameras use) a integrated part of the OS or FCP? right?

Elmar Moelzer
04-20-2004, 09:15 AM
Just to set things straight here.
Equipment with SDI- options is not that expensive...
The SDI- option for the VT3 sells for as little as 1200 Euros (about the same in US$). I would not call that expensive compared to what Cameras and VTRs still cost nowadays.
Most broadcasters here use SDI with uncompressed video.
Thats 24 Megabytes (not Megabits!!) for a standard (non HD)- Pal signal.
I dont know anyone here seriously working with FireWire.
The most- used tape- formats here are Digital Beta and the more recently introduced IMX (some compression, simillar to MPEG2- I- frames).
A few are using DVC- pro and some use DV- cam- formats, but mostly for quick reporter- like stuff and rather cheap tv- productions.
HD- TV still is not a hot topic here in Europe though (mainly due to no real standard being defined here yet).
I dont know anyone seriously using it for production here.
There were a few people that were working on a HDTV- extension for the VT1 a few years back though. They had it working with one stream already, but then dropped the project for some reasons...
Thing is, that doing Broadcast- quality video still is pretty expensive in general, even though the computer- software/hardware - part is getting cheaper and cheaper.
The reason is, that high- end camera and VTR- equipment stays rather stable in pricing (at least from what I see) and no matter how great and cheap computer- equipment gets, you wont be able to do without a camera and VTR. You know, a good lens for a camera still can cost around 100K US$ and this is where the money goes.
So IMHO, all that affordable broacast- quality- HD- TV for everyone- talk will stay a dream for a long time to come.
CU
Elmar

blabberlicious
04-20-2004, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Karmacop
Adobe can't compete, I think that's their problem. .....

Photoshop is only used because people sre use to it, and there's nothing better. There's nothign better, because everyone tries to copy photoshop.



errr...unless I've missed you point, that sounds like a successful program to me.

Some companies would love to have those sort of problems with their titles :-)

ngrava
04-20-2004, 02:49 PM
Well personally, I think Motion looks great. I’m jealous of you Mac guys. ;) It’s definitely aimed at the consumer market which I think is one of the reasons Apple has been so successful lately with multimedia. I also like the interface a lot. I think it looks nice and organized. Even when you have all the panels open, everything looks like it makes sense. I would definitely choose this over After Effects just based on that alone. I think AE has some really great pro-features but give me a break, it’s practically an example of what you shouldn’t do when planning a GUI. ;)

Oh, and could someone point me to the thread that explained all the hoo ha about 8 bit VS 10 bit VS 16 bit? Are we talking bits per pixel? Or bits per color channel? Or is this just about the sub pixel space that is used in the pipeline? What is this about?

Thanks,

-=GB=-

Beamtracer
04-20-2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Elmar Moelzer
Most broadcasters here use SDI with uncompressed video. "Most broadcasters here"??? You mean Austria? With respect, Elmar, I thought there was only one broadcaster in Austria... the official government TV channel.

But you're right in that most broadcasters are still using SDI to connect video equipment together.

Anything that's "made for broadcast" is more expensive than it otherwise should be. What makes things cheaper is when a broadcaster can use the same gear as what the consumer does. Firewire is an example of that.


Originally posted by Elmar Moelzer
doing Broadcast- quality video still is pretty expensive Part of the reason broadcast equipment is expensive is companies like Sony. Sony has a strangle hold on cameras and VTRs. DVCPRO HD will hopefully change that.


Originally posted by Elmar Moelzer
HD- TV still is not a hot topic here in Europe though (mainly due to no real standard being defined here yet). The European standard for HDTV (called DVB-HD) has been set long ago. It's just that none of the European broadcasters are choosing to use it. This HDTV standard is being used in many other countries around the world.


Originally posted by ngrava
Well personally, I think Motion looks great. I’m jealous of you Mac guys...

Oh, and could someone point me to the thread that explained all the hoo ha about 8 bit VS 10 bit VS 16 bit? Are we talking bits per pixel? Or bits per color channel? Bits per (color) channel (bpc). Stuff on the web is 8bpc. Broadcast video is 10bpc (YUV). Compositing video on a computer should be 16bpc (RGB) to give you enough headroom to add effects without introducing "banding" and other artifacts.

An older thread here explains it in more detail:
http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16608

The $299 price of the Motion compositing software may open the flood gates and let "every person and their dog" become a compositor. It will make compositing less specialized and elite. The more people who are doing it, the lower the wage you can ask.

Years ago, word processing used to be a specialized task. Now everyone is doing it. The same might happen with compositing, as a result of Motion. Actually, it's a bit ironic that Motion costs much less than the most common word processor, Microsoft Word.

jamesl
04-20-2004, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
"
The $299 price of the Motion compositing software may open the flood gates and let "every person and their dog" become a compositor. It will make compositing less specialized and elite. The more people who are doing it, the lower the wage you can ask.

Years ago, word processing used to be a specialized task. Now everyone is doing it. The same might happen with compositing, as a result of Motion. Actually, it's a bit ironic that Motion costs much less than the most common word processor, Microsoft Word.

I disagree. We heard the same thing about desktop publishing putting designers out of work, but it never happened. Why? Because once the lay-person tried to actually do something -well-, they realized that there is a skill involved that has nothing to do with the computer. Designers are more sought after than ever, becuase their skill is better understood now then before the DTP revolution. Same with video, animation, etc.

j

TSpyrison
04-20-2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer

The $299 price of the Motion compositing software may open the flood gates and let "every person and their dog" become a compositor. It will make compositing less specialized and elite. The more people who are doing it, the lower the wage you can ask.

Years ago, word processing used to be a specialized task. Now everyone is doing it. The same might happen with compositing, as a result of Motion. Actually, it's a bit ironic that Motion costs much less than the most common word processor, Microsoft Word.


(sigh)

Everyone with a computer thinks they are a web designer

Everyone with a computer thinks they are graphic designer.

Now everyone is gonna think they are a compositor.

(sigh)

Maybe I’m in the wrong business

TSpyrison
04-20-2004, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by jamesl
I disagree. We heard the same thing about desktop publishing putting designers out of work, but it never happened. Why? Because once the lay-person tried to actually do something -well-, they realized that there is a skill involved that has nothing to do with the computer. Designers are more sought after than ever, becuase their skill is better understood now then before the DTP revolution. Same with video, animation, etc.

j

Yea, but the problem is, there are a good number of “designers” that you have to work with, that really don’t know what they are doing..

Example..

Someone had sent me a logo. It was a web page graphic, and I needed it for print.
I e-mailed them, asking them if they could send me an Illustrator eps file of the logo. (assuming that when I specifically asked for Illustrator, that they would send me a vector based file)

What they sent me, was an Illustrator file, with the original web page graphic placed in it.
Sometimes I pull out my hair.

They might not have put me out of work, but they sure make things more difficult sometimes.

Elmar Moelzer
04-20-2004, 05:37 PM
Hey Beam!
True, that was the case until about a year ago. Meanwhile there have some smaller private tv- stations emerged here too.
I would also like to remind you, that the ORF, the governement- held Austrian broadcast has got a studio in every state of Austria (this makes nine studios) and meanwhile there are a few very small local cable- stations too and then there are larger german stations, that have a special channel for Austria (Pro7, Sat1, RTL).
So, there are a few. It is still hard to get a license (to send terrestricalyl or even over satelite) in Austria though. Mainly because our local government is blocking everything to be able to continue their personal (I was about to post the N- word here, but decided not to do so) propaganda- tv- station without competition.
I have friend here who has tried to get a license for almost ten years and they are blocking him, despite the fact that he got right at the European court.
Oh well... back on topic:
I dont think that cheaper computer- equipment is going to make doing broadcast cheaper. Cameras and VTRs are still the most expensive part and I dont see the prices for a good lens to go down anytime soon.
And I am not talking about Sony here, Ikegami is what rules my world ;-)
CU
Elmar

jin choung
04-20-2004, 05:39 PM
as for your last statement bt,

if they are the first as you claim, it's certainly not a big deal....

what the hell is the trick about essentially COPYING FILES?!

you have a FAT PIPE that will accommodate the throughput, in this case firewire 800, and you have a fast enough hard drive array to write that stuff down as it's comin' without dropping frames....

and that's basically the whole job! no trick. nothing to boast about really. and it's all HARDWARE.... ESPECIALLY if there's no compression on the fly. you're just dumping raw data.

so again, isn't the trick basically a .MOV qt wrapper so that fcp or qt will properly play back the file (and that playback being entirely dependent on disk speed, bottlenecks through the mainboard)?

big whup!!!

jin

p.s. nobody worry about jobs - especially as it pertains to up and comers. i've said it before, i'll say it again - unless you're prepared to walk down the street with an automatic shotgun, actively taking down prospective competition, THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN (OR SHOULD) DO ABOUT IT! not even concern yourself for heaven's sake....

don't SUCK and you'll make a living! that's all there is to do.

Beamtracer
04-20-2004, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by jin choung
what the hell is the trick about essentially COPYING FILES?! ...you're just dumping raw data.
...big whup!!! It's dumping raw files from the camera tape to your hard drive. It may seem like a simple and obvious thing, but nobody has previously done it for broadcast 100Mb/s video.

It makes things cheaper, just as the introduction of mini-DV and Firewire made it cheaper and easier for home movie makers to do video editing. That was a revolution, was it not? This new advance does the same for broadcast quality HDTV.


Originally posted by jin choung
p.s. nobody worry about jobs - especially as it pertains to up and comers. Once upon a time, compositing was done with equipment from companies like Qantel (Harry/Henry) that cost millions and millions of dollars, and took a specialist operator who got paid megabucks.

Now, with the release of $299 compositing apps, every person and their dog will get into compositing. Compositors will not be able to command the high wages that they once did. Compositing won't be such a rare thing.

So, maybe people who only composit should think about adding another stream of work (like 3D) to their portfolio.


Originally posted by Elmar Moelzer
our local government is blocking everything to be able to continue their ...propaganda- tv- station without competition. It's sad that the Austrian government runs all over-the-air television in that country. Monopoly. Propaganda. Less jobs.

It's almost as bad as Italy where Prime Minister Berlusconi controls the government TV as well as private TV. Then again, US media is controlled by about 3 main companies. What did we ever do without the internet for our information!

tokyo drifter
04-20-2004, 08:55 PM
Now, with the release of $299 compositing apps, every person and their dog will get into compositing.

:rolleyes: Nope, they're all too busy starting a garage band.

jamesl
04-20-2004, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer

Once upon a time, compositing was done with equipment from companies like Qantel (Harry/Henry) that cost millions and millions of dollars, and took a specialist operator who got paid megabucks.

Now, with the release of $299 compositing apps, every person and their dog will get into compositing. Compositors will not be able to command the high wages that they once did. Compositing won't be such a rare thing.

So, maybe people who only composit should think about adding another stream of work (like 3D) to their portfolio.

It's sad that the Austrian government runs all over-the-air television in that country. Monopoly. Propaganda. Less jobs.

I understand your logic, but historically speaking, you're just plain wrong. 3D hardware and software costs have plummeted in the last 5 years, yet talented 3d artists are not making less than they were 5 years ago. And really, After Effects started eating Quantel's lunch 10 years ago... this is not a new development. It's just that the jobs are becoming platform agnostic, the playing field is level, and talent rises. You may not get or keep a job because you know Quantel or Flame, but you will get or keep a job because you know how to put together striking imagery on whatever platform.

j

Beamtracer
04-20-2004, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by tokyo drifter
:rolleyes: Nope, they're all too busy starting a garage band. Hehehe. Well think about how many musicians jobs have been lost because of musical sequencer software (eg, E-magic, Cubase, Unicorn etc.) All those session musos are on the unemployment lines. They're not needed for most jobs any more.

If you want to make a jingle for a TV advertisement, or music for a doco, you're more likely to buy some sequencing software rather than hire all those musicians.

Now Apple is selling it's Garage Band (http://www.apple.com/ilife/garageband/) music sequencing software for $49. Everyone's going to get into it! Everyone's going to be making multitrack music recordings.

Don't tell me that computers don't cost jobs. Computers create jobs too, but in other areas.

A $299 compositing package probably won't be as pervasive as Garage Band, but I'm sure it's going to sell like hot cakes.

tokyo drifter
04-20-2004, 09:45 PM
James is right, history speaks for itself.
Now Apple is selling it's Garage Band music sequencing software for $49. Everyone's going to get into it! It's hard for "everyone" to get into it when almost "everyone" doesn't own a Mac.

This thread is getting silly. See ya.

jin choung
04-20-2004, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
It's dumping raw files from the camera tape to your hard drive. It may seem like a simple and obvious thing, but nobody has previously done it for broadcast 100Mb/s video.


as for dumping raw files from camera tape to hard drive, i hardly see how that mechanic is any cause for awe. mini dv does the exact same thing.

so again, it's just 'MORE through FATTER PIPES' and both are functions of hardware - and that is not inherently impressive.

if your claim is that apple's first and even if it's currently the 'only', i'll give you that without contention (though i don't know enough about it to say anything about the second claim... still, i'll cede it to ya).

but i stand by my evaluation:

big whup!

jin

p.s. hell, the OMNICAPTURE technology that the MATRIX films utilized to get facial performances does one better by skipping tape altogether and capturing images at much higher resolution onto hard drives. sure, it's a lot 'MORE through FATTER PIPES' but even this - technology wise - is big whup! it's not impressive! in this day and age, it's like being impressed that processors will be twice as fast next year.

petermark
04-20-2004, 11:18 PM
Motion looks good from the outset, but it'll have to prove itself. AE has been around for a long time and has loads of effects and tools built in. Motion will have to meet AE on all of it or it won't be on the same level and hence won't be the first choice. Remember that AE can be bought for $400-600. The crippled version, that is. If Motion has similiar shortcomings, it's nothing to dance about.

On the other hand, FCP is a very solid app, so if Apple has replicated that quality on Motion... well... I will be envious (but still won't switch)

badllarma
04-21-2004, 12:15 AM
Just out of intrest does the VT3 allow you to work with HD format?

I visited a extreme film festival last year on the pro day.
What I don't understand from the discusion here is all this talk of broadcast quality footage etc when at the pro day every man and his dog was shooting on Sony PD-150's which from what I can gather is DV or mini DV?
And this was making it into all sorts of TV programs?

If PAL (i'm in the UK) output is 720 x 576 no matter what res you record at it will eventually have to be this size for TV broadcast? Not really up on the subject as you all can tell can some one set me straight on this? :confused:

CaptainKirk
04-21-2004, 12:53 AM
It's all broadcast quality.

BBC uses a bunch of Sony vx2000 camcorders all the time, and those are consumer versions of PD-150 ( not as many features, no XLR inputs, etc.... )

Lets be realistic here. When TV went from black and white, it was a big jump. Jumping from a good TV set today to a HD set is not a big jump at all. Of course , once all this becomes affordable and widespread, we'll use it, but HD is absolutely unnecessary, the only guys who really needs it is marketing departments. Gotta have more of everything so you can sell us more crap. Just like we don't need these upcoming CDs, but what else are they going to sell us?

Gotta have more bits, $hits, and so on. What good is a frequency response up to 40 khz, when most humans can't even hear anything above 17-18. Maybe for pets?

We have reached a point of severely diminishing returns when it comes to video and audio. You are better off spending time on scripts and ideas than worrying about technology. For every person who actually does something creative there are at least 10 000 who after spending the money on hardware and software realized they had no story to tell. And we end up with web site after website of demos and experiments and very little actual completed work.

As for Apple, again, just like they always have , they are making up stuff again.

They were always slower and still are, they were not the first 64-bit machines, not first with HD, they won't have a 64-bit OS before Windows and they are still stuck at 2Ghz with G5 even though Beam ( Jobs Jr. ) was announcing 2.6 Ghz in January and Jobs promised 3Ghz this summer.

Nobody knows if their compositing app. is any good, so I would hold off on ridiculous comments. Remember this is the same company that can't get their Mhz above 2ghz in almost a year after launch, same guys who expect you to dump your iPod after a year when the battery runs out and buy a new one instead of just replacing a batery, a company that releases new version of OS evey season without checking whether programs like Lightwave still work after the update, a company which claims to also have the quietest computers with power management, and so on, but in reality G5s are so annoyingly noisy that 2/3 of Apple users have gone from their usual mad to completely insane.

Bottom line FCP = rip-off of Vegas

Garage Band = rip-off of Acid

nothing revolutionary about either one. Sonic Foundry did it way before Apple.

jamesl
04-21-2004, 03:02 AM
[i]Now Apple is selling it's Garage Band music sequencing software for $49. Everyone's going to get into it! Everyone's going to be making multitrack music recordings.[/B]

Well, obviously I can't get my point across that just because computers allow people to do something, they don't necessarily help them to do things well. That takes talent. Where's the flood of professional editors since iMovie has been distributed for free? I know I've seen a bunch of shlock editing, but the market for talented editors hasn't dried up. Technology is an enabler... it can enable you to do great work, or [email protected]

And the session musicians who were in high demand before Pro Tools/Cubase/Logic are STILL in high demand! Now, their producers can remix on their laptops while they fly back to LA, but that's it!

j

p.s. The Beatles did some of their best work with 4 tracks. Justin Timberlake has 48 tracks of digital goodness to work with. Is he making better music?

jamesl
04-21-2004, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by CaptainKirk

Lets be realistic here. When TV went from black and white, it was a big jump. Jumping from a good TV set today to a HD set is not a big jump at all. Of course , once all this becomes affordable and widespread, we'll use it, but HD is absolutely unnecessary, the only guys who really needs it is marketing departments.

Well, I partially agree. But when you factor in the concept that HD could concievably replace the film process, then things get really interesting. Heck, if it's good enough for George Lucas...

j

blabberlicious
04-21-2004, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Hehehe. Well think about how many musicians jobs have been lost because of musical sequencer software (eg, E-magic, Cubase, Unicorn etc.) All those session musos are on the unemployment lines. They're not needed for most jobs any more.
.

That' one perspective, Beam.

Granted.

But here in the UK, a 17 year old kid just one the prestigious Mercury Music Prize for an album he wrote, mixed and mastered on a home PC.

He live(ed) on a run down council estate, left school at 15 and was heading no where.

Until he got hold of a beaten up PC and a copy of Reason.

His album is amazing, full of innovation and 'rule breaking'. God knows what a Major would have done to it if they had insisted it be recorded and produced by people who ' knew what they were doing'.

Talent will always shine - and the doomsday word processor theorists fail to acknowledge that MANY thousands of successful artists/filmmaker/animators got their break by expressing their creativity by any means necessary.

If products like this make it more affordable , then it's all good.

BTW - Guitar music is once again flooding the charts and Dance music is the preserve of the Chemically challenged Disco Clubbers who haven't realised we're into a new millennium.

So just stick to what you love and you'll catch the Wave!

Red_Oddity
04-21-2004, 04:03 AM
Originally posted by jamesl
Well, I partially agree. But when you factor in the concept that HD could concievably replace the film process, then things get really interesting. Heck, if it's good enough for George Lucas...

j

Let's not give the man who put a character like Jar Jar in our most beloved galaxy far far away too much credit ;)

jamesl
04-21-2004, 04:06 AM
Good point, Steve. Although not as dramatic, it's kind of how I broke into the industry, through Newtek. My summer jobs allowed me to buy a Toaster, and my Lightwave 1.0 work was enough to get me into an SGI/Alias house. There was no internet, or WareZ sites for free Maya... you either had access to $50,000 SGI hardware and $30,000 Alias/Softimage software or you didn't. Cheap hardware and software will allow EVERYONE to gain experience, but only the cream rises.

j