Thanks for the link I notice that it says it's bus powered Does that mean it powers itself or it powers the midi keyboard? It seems like a very basic unit, so why would a simple cable with a gameport connection at one end and a usb connection at the other not do the same thing, if you only need to connect one keyboard? What does the little box between the midi connector and the usb connector do that is different or necessary? I was wondering if any of the musicians here who connect a midi keyboard to a Mac do so only with a simple converter cable that has no other mechanical parts? Usb on one end and a gameport connection at the other end, about 8 inches long. I use Premiere Pro as we get a complete Adobe package at work, but it's definitely on expensive side, and really meant for professionals who get paid to edit all day.So what gives? Why all the development of iMovie and nothing in several years for FCE?I think the biggest thing here is remembering the history of each program.FCE is intended to be a watered-down/entry-level Final Cut Pro. Final Cut Express is ancient by software standards, and it takes longer for me to accomplish many of the same tasks in FCE.”I think a lot of people in Grant’s position would feel the same way, and certainly FCE hasn’t had much done to it in several years. Why? Because it’s fast and easy. Last week, Grant Brünner posed a great question: “ Why is iMovie so much better than Final Cut Express?““More often than not, I find myself using iMovie to do the majority of my production.
Can I Unsave All Work Done For The Day In Pro Video Editing Mac Do SoMany of the basic concepts of Media Composer — the names of tools/techniques, using ‘bins’ instead of ‘folders,’ etc. AvidAvid Media Composer was developed in the late 80s as one of the first non-linear editing systems for professionals, and it was developed with film and television editors in mind. And most of the film and television industry at that time used Avid. Even current Final Cut Pro training software details the idea of three-point editing — for instance, an in-point (1) and out-point (2) on the source clip programmed to an in-point (3) in the timeline.In order for Media Composer (and thus Premiere and Final Cut) to be accepted by the professional industry, Avid had to translate physical processes into digital ones. The basic concept of three-point editing comes from editing with two tape decks. While certain new techniques/principles were developed within iterations of the software, the basic premise — digitally mimicking the flatbed experience — was crucial in moving editors from physically cutting film to using computers.Additionally, there was a lot borrowed from tape editing, as Media Composer was meant for the television industry as well. Even the UI (two displays over a timeline of filmstrips) mimicked the flatbed setup. It was also developed around the new FireWire interface, so its DV tools were on the front of the game.At the time of Final Cut’s official version one release, I was a student at North Carolina School of the Arts, and Apple established a good relationship with our school to implement Final Cut Pro into our films.Steven Gonzales (one of the editing faculty at the time) was the first to use FCP to cut a feature film — David Gordon Green’s “George Washington” (on imdb and hulu plus) — that went back to a film print, quite a while before Cold Mountain got a lot of notoriety for doing so. Software would be $1k-ish, and even a hardware upgrade just meant buying a new Mac desktop ($2-5k). FCP’s software-based editing was meant to do anything a $100k+ Avid system could do, but be more easily upgradable for a LOT less money. Its interface borrows heavily from the Avid experience, since that’s what anyone with any non-linear experience was familiar with.After its acquisition by Apple from Macrovision, FCP was primarily developed to compete with Avid and Premiere, spanning projects from films to wedding videos. Adobe made Premiere, which I started using in high school. Other NLEsAvid set the bar for non-linear editing. Pros in the industry, though, are constantly working and are very busy people. Film school kiddos and young indies quickly accept the newest tech. It took a few years to catch on, because most editors had been cutting on Avid for years and didn’t care to switch, especially when they had hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in their Avid.I’ve personally witnessed the slow transition and development of tech tools amongst industry players. Download film dragon nest rise of the black dragon sub indo mp4IMovieIMovie, on the other hand, was developed differently. Now that FCP has a good hold on both the pro and pro-sumer markets, it’ll be interesting to see what Apple has in store for the new Final Cut Suite which is about to be deubted.So, long story longer, though FCP is accessible and usable by high school students and the amateur filmmaker, it is designed for the film industry professional editor, and it is meant to stand on the shoulders of decades of film editing theory. Familiarity is important to an industry pro she doesn’t have time to relearn where everything is.So as FCP developed, it supplemented this slow growth in the film industry by also growing among pro-sumer filmmakers and videographers — a demographic that just didn’t exist in the last century, due to the chasm of costs in technology. FCP has undergone a lot of changes since its first version, and yet the UI is still pretty similar. The tablet project was shelved to develop the phone, but clearly a rethinking was already taking shape deep within Apple.Look at all the UI shifts in the entire iLife suite — iMovie, iPhoto, GarageBand … they’re all very touch-friendly. Coincidence? I don’t think so.If what Steve says is true, something like the iPad has been in development since 2000 or so. So what was the new priority that superseded even editing in the new iMovie?The answer can be found in the year of that new UI release — 2007, the same year the iPhone was introduced. You can see this with cut/paste on iOS, box selecting tracks in Soundtrack Pro, etc.I believe Apple, with a team headed by Randy Ubillos, redesigned iMovie around a core set of priorities, which were not primarily about editing, and therefore lost some of the editing tools in the process.The latest versions of iMovie has worked out most of what people were missing out on with the last iMovie HD, but at the time, people couldn’t conceive why Apple would redesign a program that was loved and used by so many for seemingly no reason. It was similar to Pinnacle, or a lot of other cheap, off-the-shelf editing software — barebones three-point editing, maybe add some music, titles, and transitions.Shortly after it added HD to the mix a few years ago, iMovie went through a huge UI redesign, which most hardcore iMovie users hated.The move was perplexing to most, but I now believe that Apple did with it what it often does when it creates or acquires a new piece of software — design it for what it’s supposed to do, first, then add in all the stuff that’s supposed to be there in the first place. The iPad version makes this even more practical it’s the perfect tool for it. And sure, you could probably edit a feature film on iMovie, but it’s the wrong tool for that. Sure, you could record an entire album with GarageBand, but most musicians use it to record demos and scratch tracks. The speculative futureThis is all speculation, but I think Apple will probably develop iMovie for the blogger/vodcaster/hobbyist the way it has developed GarageBand for the singer/songwriter. Want to know where OSX and iOS are headed? Watch the iLife suite. With Final Cut Pro, where a lot of people depend on the software for their livelihood, a giant redesign could be a huge PR nightmare for Apple. FCP is so customizable, you have all different kinds of power-users. General home users raised enough of a stink when it happened to iMovie. They no doubt plan on making it more touch-friendly, but I don’t know if the installed FCP user-base will accept a giant shift in UI between versions. Think about the additions: face recognition, trailer templates, title themes, etc.Likewise, Final Cut Pro will likely not develop a user interface identical to that of iMovie any time soon. It will be along the lines of the home/hobby user. Apple will continue to add some advanced features to iMovie, but it won’t ever approach the nature of Final Cut Pro. This doesn’t mean it can’t ever change it just means change has to be slow and inclusive.Then again, Apple is never afraid to say things like, “Okay, you can keep your little buttons, or you can edit Canon 5D and RED footage natively in 64-bit.” Obviously the customer will eventually choose power over habit, but it would mean making the transition at a semi-convenient time (i.e., not in the middle of a huge project), if such a thing exists.Personally, I think the types of redesigns you’re going to see with the new Final Cut Suite are better integration and round-tripping between apps in the suite, a UI redesign for Color to make it more Cocoa-looking, better native support for MPEG and RED formats — lots of under the hood and ‘how’-type stuff. A complete FCP redesign has the hard task of being written in new code, updating to beyond today’s expected features, and yet still remaining compatible with the user base and, more importantly, the industries. To drastically change the UI is to break one or more systems for a group of professional users that need it to work today. VFX guys use it another way. Corporate commercial guys use it one way.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorNaveen ArchivesCategories |