Thank you for the nice 6.5 upgrade

I don't know the statistics of people using compressed or uncompressed, but since no camera actually captures directly to ProRes for those who can't afford to work in uncompressed, then Apple has two choices.

1. Make it so that when capturing/transferring from XDCAM EX (for example) it does it DIRECTLY to the Pro Res codec of choice. As it is right now, I have to ingest, then convert. An additional step which requires more disk space.

OR

2. make it so that it works EFFICIENTLY with compressed codecs (like XDCAM).

Like I said, I don't have know how many people are using XDCAM, but I bet its a lot.

Also, you keep stating that "The other issue is one of workflow. XDCAM is not a computationally efficient format" that seems to be only true for FCP. You have obviously never seen XDCAM EX footage being editied and output from Edius. It is as fast and efficient as FCP is working with the same resolution ProRes.

So how come Thomson can figure it out and Apple can't. It appears that Apple is choosing the formats that it really wants to support, like DVCPro and others it only supports at the minimal level. The answer there is convert to ProRes. Which I'm all for doing if I had the tools to do it efficiently.

So where is this thread headed? Straight to Edius, which really sucks.

Quote
chuck
Make it so that when capturing/transferring from XDCAM EX (for example) it does it
DIRECTLY to the Pro Res codec of choice.

surely the best way to do that is via a capture card, or other io unit?

looking at the HDV to ProRes workflow,
transcoding on ingest using software only seems a bit hokey.

yes, i know that's a Capture, not a transfer, but my point is that the transcode takes a fair bit of time
Capturing via Hardware is real time.


nick

Ha as Mike said
"We don't mind the occasional here and understand some of your frustrations, but this sort of post simply invites argument rather than discussion. And that translate into noise."

------------------------
Dean

"When I see you floating down the gutter I'll give you a bottle of wine."
Captain Beefheart, Trout Mask Replica.

XDCAM EX is a tapeless format, not to say that you couldn't "capture" via HD-SDI out of the camera but that requires a camera and capture card.

Its been a while since Ive used it but Cineform had a product very similar to ProRes that could encode in near real time.

This is not noise, everything that I mentioned, Edius editing XDCAM as efficiently as FCP does ProRes and the ability to encode XDCAM directly to ProRes in the same way that Cineform can are all possible and being done on Mac Pros.

It translates into deafness and complacency. You want to know why this was such a marginal upgrade? We got what we asked for. Maybe if we held the developers feet to the fire, maybe if they really heard and felt the pain the same way we do then they'd raise the bar rather than lower the price.

grafixjoe: Is this thread going anywhere?

Francois: not any more

Andy: Was it ever?


Chuck
"... but since no camera actually captures directly to ProRes ..."
I think AJA would like you to capture direct to ProRes with their Ki Pro :-)

"Make it so that when capturing/transferring from XDCAM EX (for example) it does it DIRECTLY to the Pro Res codec of choice."
That would be a nice feature for Log and Transfer (and am surprised it isn't an option) but we do still, as always, have the option of traditional linear ingest methods and capturing to a codec of our choice, including ProRes.

"make it so that it works EFFICIENTLY with compressed codecs (like XDCAM)."
Well, the XDCAM handling is supposedly improved with this release ... how much so I don't know, but enough for them to tout it. Why they don't use segment encoding a la Edius? I don't know that either, but I do know Edius very well and have used it nigh on daily for about 3 years ... in fact I use it far more often than I use FCP, and brother that ain't out of personal choice. Yes I know Edius plenty well enough to know that I'd prefer FCP any day of the week, even if that week consisted entirely of working with XDCAM.

So where is this thread headed? Straight to Edius, which really sucks.
Yes it does, it really sucks ... but I didn't come here to bash Edius now did I? ;-)

Oops.

What I meant to say was that having to use Edius because of FCP's shortcomings sucks. If Thomson would include Bones and other applications to create a suite of tools like FCS would be great.

Interestingly the reason I purchased FCS2 was for Color and Motion, although I rely a lot less on Motion. If I could figure out how to "send to" to and from Premier Pro and AE to Color I'd toss the rest.

well that thread seems to be going somewhere after all...
(it's called debate)

? yes it would be nice to ingest XDCam EX (and the whole Sony Gop family on hard media) as ProRes, why can't we ? when it's possible with ... AVCHD.
AJA KiPro is nice, I have tested it. Perfect for studio/tripod situation.
I can't wait to add it under my EX1 next time I film in Sahara desert !

? rendering sucks in Fcp and staying head buried in the sand won't change it.

maybe ask for a renewal on this might help to change it.


I don't want to work on day on Edius with that client using XDCam HD Worklow.

The "debate" ended a long time ago. Now it's just a grouse session.

So its only a grouse session when we complain about why this release lacks improvement in multiprocessing, increased performance with native codecs other than ProRes or discuss an efficient way to turn non-native codecs into ProRes for improved workflow.

But apparently ts perfectly acceptable to complain about Apple's implementation of HTTP documentation. Because you know that if Apple would have included the manuals as PDF's FCP would no longer need to render and everything would be realtime.

I get it, any long GOP format is beneath you and you can't understand why anyone would want to force FCP to work in such conditions. But there are a LOT of people who HAVE to deal with footage shot on any number of Sony, JVC and Canon cameras that shoot long GOP. As a result it would be great if those of us could discuss the issues related to working with these codecs without continually being told that "We have made a conscious choice to do something that puts Final Cut Pro at a distinct disadvantage."

What I don't understand is that its apparent that you don't work with XDCAM and by your own admission have never used FCP7, so WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I asked a simple straight forward question, which others in this thread expressed interest in as well, and was not negative in any way.

The debate ended when you posted and continually defended what you "think" FCP7 can or can't do. If you don't have direct experience with an issue please keep your platitudes to yourself. The forum moderators should not be the ones who turn a topic into a "grouse" session.

Quote

So its only a grouse session when we complain

Bingo.

Quote

But apparently ts perfectly acceptable to complain about Apple's implementation of HTTP documentation

I personally don't think so, no. I said what I had to say and tuned out of that thread a while back. Heading that way on this thread, too.

Quote

I get it, any long GOP format is beneath you

No, editing GOP material is sub-optimal and better workflows exist for dealing with the stuff. I know, I've been dealing almost exclusively with MPEG-2- and MPEG-4-based SD formats and MPEG-2-based HD formats for over a year now. I've posted at great length and many times here about my preferred workflows for dealing with the stuff, as have others. Shane, for instance, prefers to digitize all GOP-based material over SDI to get into his intermediate format. Others have different tricks up their sleeves.

I really wish you hadn't taken "there are other tricks up your sleeve and you should try them out" so personally, Chuck. I'm sorry if I got snippy, but it gets really old when you insist, over and over again, that you simply must use XDCAM as your intermediate timeline format, when we all know that simply ain't so. You have other, better options for cutting that material.

Chuck... let it go...

Look, its always OK to have a discussion. The problem was that this thread's tone was set pretty much from the beginning and it developed into just so much "grousing" primarily due to the tone.

No one is wrong here as no one is usually wrong. It's just that if you wish to have a civil discussion on a public forum using the written word then set the appropriate tone right from the beginning and no matter what response you get, keep it light and breezy. That stimulates not only constructive input from others who might just want to stay out of it, but more often than not, a solution is reached.

Michael Horton
-------------------

Let's all remember: As people who give a damn about what we do, we're going to have strong opinions. But let's remember that what's right for one person isn't right for another, and at some point it's moot to try to tailor another person's situation to ours. Some clients/producers/owners do insist on completely nonsensical ways to do things because of equipment limitation, misperceptions, personal preference, habits, and sometimes just plain superstition. If they're paying the bills, it's their right to do so, even if we try to recommend something different and they reject it. At that point, either take the job and try to make it work, or don't work with them.


www.derekmok.com