Insight into Apple Strategy for FCP-X, iPad and more?

[Terry VerHaar]

This on MacRumors:

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/07/apple-to-launch-ipad-hd-this-fall-alongside-pro-apps/

Might it give some insight into what Apple sees as a part of the future for video production and post production and their role in it. Would it surprise anyone that the iPad could play a part? If you look at some of the powerful ways it is already being deployed on set, it should come as no surprise. What is more "pro" than working with the footage before it even comes off the camera?? I think Michael Cioni is one of the quintessential pros that does just that!!

 

[Brad Webb]

When i watched the demo video of FCPX the first thing I thought about was how easily the editing by clicking could translate to ipad editing. I can also see the Ipad HD being used on almost every photo shoot.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Yah, I agree - this would be killer - sorry I'm not buying the whole "Apple doesn't care about pros" talk ....

 

[Tim Morten]

Ha ha ha! Post houses on iPads instead of proper systems. Can't stop laughing! I actually think you guys are serious. I hear there's going to FCPX for the iPod Nano too!!! Final Cut loyalists are awesome!!!

 

[Jonathan Stevenson]

I happily gave $900 to Adobe yesterday. Nuff said...

 

[Chris Kenny]

Ha ha ha! Post houses on iPads instead of proper systems. Can't stop laughing! I actually think you guys are serious. I hear there's going to FCPX for the iPod Nano too!!! Final Cut loyalists are awesome!!!

Nobody said anything about "post houses on iPads". Although the truth is, if you project out five or ten years, onlining a feature on your iPad while sitting on your couch, monitoring your image wirelessly on the 60" AMOLED screen in your living room, is not actually that implausible.

In the more immediate future, FCP X on iPad could be a killer feature for offline editing. If Apple really does this, within three years you're going to read an article about an editor who cut a film sitting under his favorite tree in the park or in a cabin in the woods or whatever, raving about how great it was to get away from the humming boxes and the windowless rooms. The way FCP X can automatically manage multiple versions of each clip (proxy media, optimized media, original media) could allow for seamless offline editing on iPad, followed by conforming on the desktop.

This industry is a little too impressed with big, expensive equipment. In the not-too-distant future, "post production" isn't going to be much more challenging for mainstream hardware than word processing presently is. In fact, this is already very nearly true for everything except color grading... and even there, serious real-time color grading capability now requires ~$15K worth of hardware and software, where just a few years ago it required $150K or more. The folks obsessed with "proper systems" (i.e. expensive specialty gear) are going to be really annoyed by a lot of things happening over the coming years.

 

[Bruce Allen]

In the more immediate future, FCP X on iPad could be a killer feature for offline editing. If Apple really does this, within three years you're going to read an article about an editor who cut a film sitting under his favorite tree in the park or in a cabin in the woods or whatever, raving about how great it was to get away from the humming boxes and the windowless rooms.

Actually, you don't have to wait 3 years in order to edit under a tree. You can use a machine called a "laptop".

I read an article about a guy using one of these "laptops" running Avid to work on Toy Story 3 while on a thing called an "aircraft".

I have one with a 12" multi-touch screen. Also I can use a pressure sensitive Wacom stylus with it. Cost me $999.

But darn it, since it's not made by Apple, it obviously can't exist for the next 3 years.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I happily gave $900 to Adobe yesterday. Nuff said...

Smart.

And for all you guys who are desperately trying to cling to FCP... I can't wait to see what you all think when FCPX becomes a $750 app requiring support from at least 3 different companies, just so you can have access to a handful of codecs, XML and EDL ability, etc.. Seriously, suck it up and pick your poison now, or double-down and get both. Avid or Adobe. The buy-in prices are great and won't last forever. Or maybe they will if Apple and the so far unnamed third-parties, who just got limited, exclusive access to a beta SDK like 2 days ago, all fail to produce something good. As it stands right now, editing in FCPX is like trying to be a sperm donor with a vasectomy and chronic ED.

And Bruce is right. Even if you're an Apple fan, you can do this now. I can cut with multiple streams of 4K R3D on my Macbook Pro (or HP notebook) now, today. Ironically, I do have a favorite tree to sit under and have occasionally taken such a device with me to remote cabins.

 

[Chris Kenny]

Actually, you don't have to wait 3 years in order to edit under a tree. You can use a machine called a "laptop".

The ability to edit on laptops is great. It seems like some hilarious fraction of indie films are edited on a MacBook Pro these days. That's what I'm seeing, anyway.

But though they're called 'laptops', the actual ergonomics of the devices make them more suitable for use on a desk, and the experience of using one is still very 'computery' -- windows, a file manager, indirect input, spinning fans, etc. There's something very appealing about performing creative tasks without any of the usual computer paraphernalia. iPad editing would enable this to an extent that laptop editing doesn't, I think.

 

[Aaron McAdam]

As it stands right now, editing in FCPX is like trying to be a sperm donor with a vasectomy and chronic ED.

Jeff, that needs to go in the "Best Reduser Quotes" or whatever the thread is called.

 

[Marc Wielage]

If Apple really does this, within three years you're going to read an article about an editor who cut a film sitting under his favorite tree in the park or in a cabin in the woods or whatever, raving about how great it was to get away from the humming boxes and the windowless rooms.

I worked on an indie feature last year where the director/editor cut three major sequences while on airplane trips between LA and the East coast, on an Apple laptop. This is nothing new. There's nothing better or different about editing on a laptop vs. an iPad, except that the iPad is a lot slower, has no external file storage capacity, and can't run OSX software. (Yet.) But you can sit under a tree and edit on a laptop all you want -- right now.

Bear in mind, it's still not about the software -- it's about the skill and experience of the user.

In fact, this is already very nearly true for everything except color grading... and even there, serious real-time color grading capability now requires ~$15K worth of hardware and software, where just a few years ago it required $150K or more.

You still need a lot more than that to do a very complicated film. For example, Transformers 3 used three rooms (sometimes simultaneously) accessing hundreds of terabytes of storage, all using the Linux version of Resolve and the full DaVinci control surface (and multiple colorists working around the clock, under one supervising colorist). I don't think it's going to be possible to do it much cheaper or easier, because filmmakers keep ramping up their expectations. 3D 4K is not a simple proposition for any post facility, regardless of size.

Simple, straightforward films... maybe. But accurate monitoring is still a huge consideration.

 

[Chris Kenny]

You still need a lot more than that to do a very complicated film. For example, Transformers 3 used three rooms (sometimes simultaneously) accessing hundreds of terabytes of storage, all using the Linux version of Resolve and the full DaVinci control surface (and multiple colorists working around the clock, under one supervising colorist). I don't think it's going to be possible to do it much cheaper or easier, because filmmakers keep ramping up their expectations. 3D 4K is not a simple proposition for any post facility, regardless of size.

The vast majority of projects, even in Hollywood, do not require 3D 4K. And arguably nothing requires 3D 4K with live 4K monitoring.

My argument is not that Hollywood won't be able to keep finding really expensive ways to do things in post. It's that the additional capabilities that those vast sums of money buy are becoming more marginal all the time. Even five years ago, there was a huge difference between the results you could achieve with $400K worth of gear and with $15K worth of gear. Today, that difference is much smaller. This trend will continue.

Simple, straightforward films... maybe. But accurate monitoring is still a huge consideration.

Honestly, we grade features on a Dreamcolor and a 50" consumer plasma calibrated in-house with low-cost off-the-shelf tools. For final verification, we rent a DI theater for a couple of hours to screen. Our accuracy has been spot-on every time.

In this industry, you get a lot more respect for doing things the expensive way than for doing things the cheap way, even though nobody can tell the difference from the final product. It's an ego thing, and hopefully everyone will get over it one of these years, as the capability gap between 'desktop' post and 'big iron' post grows ever-smaller.

 

[Javor Divjak]

You can already edit using FCP X on iPad...sort of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa_Er5ae33w&feature=player_embedded

 

[Javor Divjak]

Another use for iPad...guess we know now where the editing on a Mac is heading.
http://freytag-film.com/2011-06-working-with-the-ipad-and-final-cut-pro-x/

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Ha ha. Some of you guys kill me. I thought this was a forum of creative thinkers. And all you can come up with is the all or nothing - "Gee, you lame FCP-X fans are planning on spending your time on the beach editing and finishing your feature film on an iPad. Good luck with that." Ask Michael Cioni if there is value in reviewing dailies on set before they are even out of the camera. And think about having an assistant editor taking all the footage into an iPad on FCP-X as it's shot. Sound, color and stabilization issues can be immediately flagged. Smart Collections, set up ahead of time, can automatically identify any number of categories of shots, organized by scene, location, actor, shot angle, cameras, you name it - with a database underlying the app, there are no limits, whatever works. All good takes can be collected in one place while unusable takes can be put into a "if hell freezes over" category. It doesn't seem too farfetched that a RED "look" can be appended to the media at this stage - not "baked in," of course.

The assistant can create a preliminary timeline and place all useable takes in an Audition where the Director and Editor can look at them quickly later, evaluating each take quickly and easily, almost effortlessly - on their laptop or "serious" machine, of course. The assistant editor can do all this while wandering around the set talking to the people that have input - director, DP, sound guy, etc - making notes as he goes. Within 20 minutes of finishing the day's shoot he/she can send the project file (with proxies, timeline, media organization, notes, etc) to the appropriate parties for further work on the offline/proxy files while the full rez files are still en route. This whole process can be repeated every day and accumulated. The work can pass seamlessly back from the edit suite (where the big expensive "pro" stuff lives) to the person on set who can keep things consistent and share information, all while continuing to build the information that can be used to make the final edit go more efficiently.

To me, none of this seems all that revolutionary or even innovative. It's almost just a natural evolution of having new tools, both hardware and software. But the iPad is convenient to carry around the set in a way that a laptop is not. And FCP-X and/or a "lite" version on the iPad that is seamlessly compatible with the, uh (lol) "pro" version, is just as much a natural move forward. Funny thing is, though, I don't see any company besides Apple setting up for this possibility. I am sure it's not for everybody, but the potential efficiencies and ability to deliver work much more quickly are certainly persuasive.

This is hardly a "wow, crazy, out-of-the-box" description of what's possible; not really all that dramatic or forward thinking, really. But if you can't see how this makes sense, and that the innovation introduced into the process by Apple is at least worthy of consideration, then, well, just keep doing it "the old fashioned way" and enjoy yourself. It's all good!!! :001_smile:

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Smart.

And for all you guys who are desperately trying to cling to FCP... I can't wait to see what you all think when FCPX becomes a $750 app requiring support from at least 3 different companies, just so you can have access to a handful of codecs, XML and EDL ability, etc.. Seriously, suck it up and pick your poison now, or double-down and get both. Avid or Adobe. The buy-in prices are great and won't last forever. Or maybe they will if Apple and the so far unnamed third-parties, who just got limited, exclusive access to a beta SDK like 2 days ago, all fail to produce something good. As it stands right now, editing in FCPX is like trying to be a sperm donor with a vasectomy and chronic ED.

And Bruce is right. Even if you're an Apple fan, you can do this now. I can cut with multiple streams of 4K R3D on my Macbook Pro (or HP notebook) now, today. Ironically, I do have a favorite tree to sit under and have occasionally taken such a device with me to remote cabins.

Jeff - you seriously think it is the price that is going to make or break FCP-X? You seem to have already decided but, when FCP-X picks up some of the features that people have been os loudly complaining it lacks, the issue of whether is is $299, or $750 or even back to $1299 for the full functionality won't be the issue. And the same companies that serviced Final Cut Suite along with plug-ins, i/o boards, storage, control surfaces, compatible apps and the like - will be the same. And since when do Avid or Adobe or Sony or any other software or hardware provider deliver such a complete and infallible system that you don't have to provide some of your own effort and intelligence. This forum and every other one of its kind are filled with questions about workflow and compatibility. Why is Apple so much more guilty than those companies? I'd argue that getting a hardware/software platform from the same source is likely to reduce your worries, not add to them.

As far as your sperm donor analogy, I can't really relate to that but I might suggest you see a doctor! :w00t:

 

[Tim Morten]

Terry, unless you have a need to work standing up, a laptop can do what you want today, without waiting for Apple to bring FCPX up to par, and without screwing around with a touch interface.

Your original suggestion was creative, just not necessary or practical in my opinion. No offense intended.

Cheers,
Tim

 

[Chris Kenny]

And since when do Avid or Adobe or Sony or any other software or hardware provider deliver such a complete and infallible system that you don't have to provide some of your own effort and intelligence. This forum and every other one of its kind are filled with questions about workflow and compatibility.

It's sort of hilarious. On the one hand, FCP X detractors are complaining FCP X doesn't fit into workflows with the third-party tools they require. On the other hand, they're complaining that FCP X will require the use of third-party tools to achieve certain things.

So, there's a set of tasks that require third party tools... and a set of tasks that absolutely must not require third-party tools... and these happen to match up with what traditional NLEs provide. Drawing these lines in anywhere else, in either direction, just has to be wrong, right?

There's a really silly amount of status quo bias in this discussion.

It's very easy to imagine these third party opportunities that Apple is leaving open having significantly positive effects for pro customers. EDL export was in FCP 7, but it was probably not one of Apple's primary priorities, and it was not flawless -- time reversed clips exported with incorrect timecode, for instance. But by including a 'good enough' implementation, Apple probably torpedoed what would have otherwise been a viable market for a third-party solution, from a more focused developer. Any pro who uses a feature like this day in and day out would much rather pay for a first-rate implementation than get a 'good enough' implementation for free, and that could easily be what happens with FCP X.

 

[Chris Kenny]

Terry, unless you have a need to work standing up, a laptop can do what you want today, without waiting for Apple to bring FCPX up to par, and without screwing around with a touch interface.

Welcome to There's No Value in iPads Because Laptops Already Exist Part MMMDCXLIII: The Video Editing Edition.

Seriously, we did this 18 months ago, when the iPad was announced. Yes, laptops do, from a technical perspective, everything iPads do, and more. But they bring a lot of computer 'baggage' along for the ride. Many people seem to see value in a device which allows them to leave that behind.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Terry, unless you have a need to work standing up, a laptop can do what you want today, without waiting for Apple to bring FCPX up to par, and without screwing around with a touch interface.

Your original suggestion was creative, just not necessary or practical in my opinion. No offense intended.

Cheers,
Tim

If you can and want to sit down, more power to you. By all means, work that way. It is, however, hard to move around the set and talk with the people from whom you want to gather information. Kind of the same difference as using a yellow tablet to jot notes or carrying a typewriter around your neck, eh? It is curious that the iPad is finding it's way on set for these kinds of things, no? And who jumps into a cab for a 20 minute ride and immediately continues their edit by whipping out their laptop? iPads are just more quickly accessible. And as far as "screwing around with a touch interface." Really? And you still use a dial phone? :lol:

And that really was only half the point, anyway. The design and features of FCP-X, when a few of the controversial "issues" are addressed, will contribute to a very efficient editing workflow that begins immediately as the footage is shot - maybe on a laptop, but I think an iPad will make it even more fluid. And I think that's what Apple is shooting for, too. What other company has as much to gain by making all these things work well together?