Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

R3D FCPX support?

Well, the ball's in Apple's court. If Apple bother to give RED a SDK, then the process can begin.

When FCPX was released, RED (and pretty much everyone else, incl Red Giant, etc) mentioned that they would love to support FCPX but there was no API or documentation available to them.

The only guys happily making plugins are folks making FXplugs for Motion, and Automatic Duck, which Apple gave non-public info to.

I guess RED could make R3D importer as a Motion FXplug filter / project? Then you could load that into FCPX?

But with Adobe and Avid (and Assimilate and Blackmagic and Autodesk and Quantel etc) eagerly courting RED, I don't see why RED would necessarily want to try to hack stuff if Apple decide to stupidly stick their noses up at R3D...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
I would guess that there is a plug-in architecture for various camera codecs in the works. Something like Avid's AMA. The point is to support .r3d files natively via AV Foundation. It's probably a bit more involved than it has been in the past, when the REDCODE codec was wrapped as QT .MOV. It's probably a 2-step situation - Apple SDK or API, then RED making a plug-in.

- Oliver
 
Oliver Peters said:
I would guess that there is a plug-in architecture for various camera codecs in the works. Something like Avid's AMA. The point is to support .r3d files natively via AV Foundation. It's probably a bit more involved than it has been in the past, when the REDCODE codec was wrapped as QT .MOV. It's probably a 2-step situation - Apple SDK or API, then RED making a plug-in.
Click to expand...

100% agree. That it is in the works is very likely.

What is weird is why the heck Apple isn't talking to RED while developing it?

If I were making some kind of next-generation AV Foundation thing, the first thing I'd do would be call up RED and say "this is what we're planning on doing - looks good to you?" And work with RED to do some tests, find all of the memory leaks, etc when you pipe 4K footage through it.

But nah, let's keep everything secret so that there's a nice big delay between when it's announced and when 3rd parties actually can write the code to make stuff that plugs into it. That makes sense :P

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Apple doesn't talk to anyone until it's a done-deal. Part of the arrogance in Cupertino.

Oliver
 
In addition to the above there is also a question of what capacity FCPX is able support an Epic Camera. If the FCPX max resolution is 4k currently, I'm not sure how well that would work when importing and using 5k R3D's. Maybe it would just have to downscale them all for editing?
 
Brad Allen said:
I'm not sure how well that would work when importing and using 5k R3D's.
Click to expand...

I have imported 5K files from an Epic (Pro Res converted with RCX) and these are resized to 4K on the timeline using the spacial conform control. This gives you a Fit/Fill/None toggle. Fit or Fill means you match the height or width and the image is scaled or cropped accordingly. None would mean a crop.

- Oliver
 
Oliver Peters said:
Apple doesn't talk to anyone until it's a done-deal. Part of the arrogance in Cupertino.

Oliver
Click to expand...

Arrogance? You think? With all of the smart phones and tablets out there that are nearly clones of their Apple counterparts, can you think of another reason Apple might be so secretive? How catastrophic would it have been for Apple if another company had beat them to market with their own iPhone clone?

Ask Jim about the potential danger of broadcasting your tech development plans. Some folks like to think that Red is keeping more to themselves these days because of the pissing and moaning related to missed release dates, but others of us will remember him saying that it is because his competition was taking notice.

Arrogance. I can't help but think this analysis is more emotional than logical.
 
Scott Crawley said:
Arrogance? You think? With all of the smart phones and tablets out there that are nearly clones of their Apple counterparts, can you think of another reason Apple might be so secretive? How catastrophic would it have been for Apple if another company had beat them to market with their own iPhone clone?
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, if Apple had direct Red support then Adobe would follow suit and steal that idea from them.
 
Scott Crawley said:
I can't help but think this analysis is more emotional than logical.
Click to expand...
Ever spoken to any actual Apple execs? Had an conversations where you bring up legitimate issues and get responses like, "why would anyone ever want to do that?" or "you're doing it the wrong way?" You tell me. I don't mean arrogance in a mean-spirited way. Rather the belief that their way is the one, true and right path.

I agree there are logical reasons to be secretive and protective. However Apple also likes to live in their own world instead of support many of the industry standards. Sometimes they are right and sometimes the aren't. They also like to pick favorites and make private deals excluding some other developers in the process.

Oliver
 
There might be other thinks to consider in all of this.

I'm going to be deliberately cryptic.

Adobe and Flash vs. Apple H.264
Red H.264 module - quiet
Adobe native support for RED
Google = YouTube = 4k delivery
Google buys Adobe?
Red Ray not only as a home hardware device but as an Internet delivery codec.
All this in your living room maybe.
FCP X (send to YouTube from 4k timeline)
Adobe 4k timelines.

Lots of possibilities that could shake down depending on how and what deals are done by major players.

Food for thought when considering the speed at which this is or is not happening.


David
 
Oliver Peters said:
They also like to pick favorites and make private deals excluding some other developers in the process.

Oliver
Click to expand...


This is so true. FCP 7 FCS Studio was the first to support r3d in the app. At the time it was also important for Red to be widely accepted and usable in "the industry". People were like, "hey FCP has RED support" when AVID and adobe did not.

They needed each other then.

Now, FCP X ships with shots of German cars shot with a German camera. Now the demos show clearly shots labelled ALEXA footage.

But!!!!!!

FCP X is about file based workflows. RED produces cameras exactly for that purpose.

I think that going forward we could see better than ever R3d support in this incarnation of FCP X.
Why?

-file based workflow
-64 bit operating system
-open CL
-OSX Lion


It's in everybody's interest (businesses and customers). It's still cool to open an r3d on a laptop air and watch it on a plane.

David
 
Oliver Peters said:
Ever spoken to any actual Apple execs? Had an conversations where you bring up legitimate issues and get responses like, "why would anyone ever want to do that?" or "you're doing it the wrong way?" You tell me. I don't mean arrogance in a mean-spirited way. Rather the belief that their way is the one, true and right path.

I agree there are logical reasons to be secretive and protective. However Apple also likes to live in their own world instead of support many of the industry standards. Sometimes they are right and sometimes the aren't. They also like to pick favorites and make private deals excluding some other developers in the process.

Oliver
Click to expand...

I don't know first hand, but it has been widely reported that this kind of attitude is part of the culture there, perhaps in emulation of Jobs himself; so I'll grant you that with no argument. However when a logical argument presents itself among what seems like an emotional reaction, I'm going to hedge my bets and allow them the benefit of the doubt. No offense intended.

Another complaint also leveled in this debate is that Apple, a fine consumer product company, is either uninterested or incapable of meeting the needs of business. I do know engineers who showed an interest in integrating the Apple II into their systems but received an inadequate response; so this goes back a long way. When folks are insecure about placing Apple at the heart of their business I can't argue with them either.

I'd have to say that I'm one of those who love working with Apple products and love what they have enabled me to do, but I embrace them with caution. Guarded optimism remains my posture with regard to FCPX. They really need to implement a more viable (read native) Red workflow to retain my support.

Late addition: I don't know if FCPX is breaking any new ground, but if that is the intent, then audacity is required. I admire audacity short of recklessness. Whether or not the line has been crossed has yet to be determined.
 
Last edited:
Scott Crawley said:
I'd have to say that I'm one of those who love working with Apple products and love what they have enabled me to do, but I embrace them with caution. Guarded optimism remains my posture with regard to FCPX.
Click to expand...

There is barely a person around who has not had a career in design, print, advertizing, music, film, video, TV, audio production, web content creation, photography, image retouching, Color Correction, or many other creative endevours, who have not "touched" an Apple product.

I sometimes walk down a street and imagine how much of what I am seeing was made or partially made on a MAC (apple).

It's really quite astounding.

David
 
Scott Crawley said:
I don't know first hand, but it has been widely reported that this kind of attitude is part of the culture there, perhaps in emulation of Jobs himself; so I'll grant you that with no argument. However when a logical argument presents itself among what seems like an emotional reaction, I'm going to hedge my bets and allow them the benefit of the doubt. No offense intended.
Click to expand...

David Battistella said:
There is barely a person around who has not had a career in design, print, advertizing, music, film, video, TV, audio production, web content creation, photography, image retouching, Color Correction, or many other creative endevours, who have not "touched" an Apple product.

I sometimes walk down a street and imagine how much of what I am seeing was made or partially made on a MAC (apple).

It's really quite astounding.
Click to expand...


I worked for Apple for four years running business sales for their store in Salt Lake City. My last year we were the number one store in business sales in the US, regularly outselling the flagships in New York, Chicago, LA and San Francisco (as well as most of the International stores). Corporate never once asked how we were so successful, and eventually started telling me how I should be doing things. Arrogant? Absolutely! But arrogant isn't necessarily always bad and I don't think we'd have the great Apple products we have if they didn't believe they had a better way to do things.
 
Scott Crawley said:
...I'm going to hedge my bets and allow them the benefit of the doubt. No offense intended. ..... is either uninterested or incapable of meeting the needs of business .
Click to expand...

No offense taken. I know a number of folks inside Apple and consider them friends and certainly feel they have the interest of the user at heart. There is a culture there, though, and they live by that culture or move on.

I, too, like a lot of what Apple does and I agree that they are one of the few companies that can be so bold and still survive the downside of doing so. OTOH, Apple has a history of not playing well with the enterprise and this has only become worse with the success of the consumer products. It's not that there isn't interest, but merely a quickness to dump under-performing products. Sometimes these products, like Color or like Final Cut Server should have never been released to the market by Apple. The expectation of potential sales was either unrealistic or should have been handled in a manner consistent with that type of product.

So when you look at FCP X, Apple has gone for a broader base at the risk of losing current customers. When folks here moan that there's no native RED support, my attitude is that the numbers simply don't warrant Apple doing anything beyond making an SDK available. That's not disinterest, but rather smart business.

Oliver
 
Oliver Peters said:
It's not that there isn't interest, but merely a quickness to dump under-performing products. Sometimes these products, like Color or like Final Cut Server should have never been released to the market by Apple. The expectation of potential sales was either unrealistic or should have been handled in a manner consistent with that type of product.

So when you look at FCP X, Apple has gone for a broader base at the risk of losing current customers. When folks here moan that there's no native RED support, my attitude is that the numbers simply don't warrant Apple doing anything beyond making an SDK available. That's not disinterest, but rather smart business.
Click to expand...


Color and Final Cut Server and Shake all follow the same pattern: Apple buys a great technology, turns it into a great [or potentially great] product at a much lower price and then eventually kills the product but integrates the technology into their other software. It's good for the general user but sad for the professional who came to rely on the discontinued product. Ultimately, Apple's business model is not set up to support the business user. I think you need to turn to companies that are set up to support the business and professional user if you don't want to be forever frustrated by your supplier. Companies such as Avid or Adobe or The Foundry or Autodesk...or RED.
 
Douglas,

Go ask the guys who sold Shake, Silcon Color and (I forget who they bought that core tech from) if they would have survived on their professional user base. Those companies positioned themselves to be purchased by a company like Apple.

Apple was buying core technology and industry cache. That was the point. They are in business, they are not in the Save the pro market software business.

Do you know why the software cost so much? To few customers. Low user base, high price. Even with a giant price drop in Shake, ultimately it was lack of sales that killed it.

The user base did not grow.

I am not saying I agree, but I imagine this is how it works. They give the software the best chance, but if they don't take off they harvest the organs and leave a carcass.

David
 
So far as Shake is concerned, that is exactly what happened. Before the big price drop, Apple did a survey of registered FCP owners asking if and how often they used After Effects. They also asked users if they would use Shake if it were more competitively priced. Six months later Shake went from $5k to $500. I don't think 12 months passed before they pronounced Shake EOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top