[eaddison]

Namely between all the apps, not just two.

Actually, a form of it exists between all the apps. In CS3 it was AE to PPro, AE to Encore, Photoshop to PPro and AE, Soundbooth to PPro and AE...so there's that point. In CS4 - it's between all of them.

Ever hear of Shake tho?

That really good software they discontinued - yes, I have. And it wasn't always a "fraction" of the cost if I remember correctly.

As for Photoshop, I was thinking more of the linking that went on with the files - I can update the photoshop files on my timeline in PPro with Photoshop open, just by saving the changes in Photoshop..."Edit in Photoshop" is a nice command.

It UNwraps the MXF?? Ermm... no, sorry.

How it works in PPro is you import the MXF files, and that's what you edit with - not an MXF wrapped in an AVI. With FCP, you have to use the transfer function - taking the information from the MXF and wrapping it into a QT file. If FCP could handle MXF files natively, why does it need to wrap it in a QT? And I never said it was terrible or a loss in quality - just one more time consuming step.

You don't know what you're talking about, sorry.

Really? www.moviola.com/p2[uworkflow[/u]with_fcp]

In case you don't want to read the whole page : "The contents of P2 cards are not directly native to Final Cut Pro. P2 cards store HD video in a file format called MXF (Material eXchange Format). So part of the ingest process involves converting that MXF data into QuickTime, which is native to Final Cut. There is no need to be concerned about any quality loss. This process simply involves "re-wrapping" the video from one container format to another. This will be handled automatically in the Log and Transfer window. "

(you don't even have the ProRes option on a PC to begin with)

Well, Apple did release a plug-in so Windows machines could view the files, but there is Cineform if we need it. But with a fast enough computer, working native with the files isn't that big of an issue. I edit HDV projects native in PPro with no issues. But I'm not knocking Pro-Res - I think it's a great thing to have.

I believe you're mistaking us with Avid-Users.

No - I know who I'm talking about.

[lin2log]

tallscot said:

> I don't expect it until next Spring, [?] I haven't read anything that says [?] that it will do Blu-ray authoring. [?] but I haven't confirmed it with any evidence.

:-D
Well gee, in THAT case we of course can assume it's completely unlikely! Since YOU have no "evidence". Especially since Apple is so well known for announcing products faaaar in advance to the general public. First and foremost to the tallscot's of this world.

lol

[lin2log]

tallscot said:

FCP to and from Motion doesn't transfer sound, for example.

LOL... what?? Sorry, that completely disqualifies you for any sort of discussion.

Quote

Motion to Compressor has so many bugs I am forced to export out of Motion.

:-)))) That adds to the above. Using Compressor for export from Motion is complete nonsense, since Compressor doesn't use Motion's real-time engine and therfore would export far slower than Motion itself.

Whatever.

[lin2log]

:-))))
This is getting cute. I have no CAUSE, sorry. lol.

And yes, we've now thoroughly established that you are the ultimate insider and nothing gets past you as far as Apple's future product planning and development is concerned. You can stop repeating it now. No one here could possibly be a beta-tester for Apple, therefore actually know more than you on the subject, right? :-D

And sorry, not once did I say "just wait", so you can stop with the polemic rambling now, thank you.

l2l

[lin2log]

eaddison said:

That really good software they discontinued - yes, I have. And it wasn't always a "fraction" of the cost if I remember correctly.

LOL... gee, really? So... your point being WHAT exactly? :-))
And yes, it's been discontinued... under the name "Shake". Very observant.
If I remember correctly, I wasn't always this old and gas prices weren't always this high... hmmm... gee, never thought of it that way. Wow... and correct me if I'm wrong, but I could even swear there was once no CS4 OR CS3!

Quote

And I never said it was terrible or a loss in quality - just one more time consuming step.

Ah, so you don't know what you're talking about... (other than what google tells you that is), gotcha. Or do you always devise such limp straws for the grasping, once you run out of arguments?

But hey, I understand. Someone on such a tight schedule like yourself, the difference between 6 times real-time and 5.946 times real-time (assuming there actually WAS a difference) can mean millions, right? :-D

Quote

Really?

LOL... yeah, really. Thanks for making the point. Too bad you didn't read that BEFORE you posted. But hey sure, just because it says RE-wrapping (mind you in quotation marks) that of course proves everything. You don't even seem to grasp, that the "re-wrapping" is technically nothing more than if you were to install a plug-in for Photoshop so it can read Microcosm 64-bit images! But you probably think Photoshop has to change something in the actual file first too, before it can be opened, eh? At least you'd have to, to be somewhat consistent with your argumentation.

Quote

Well, Apple did release a plug-in so Windows machines could view the files, but there is Cineform if we need it. But with a fast enough computer, working native with the files isn't that big of an issue. I edit HDV projects native in PPro with no issues. But I'm not knocking Pro-Res - I think it's a great thing to have.

Um, you could knock ProRes all you wanted, wouldn't actually change much, other than make things that much worse. And it's just too bad there's no hardware whatsoever that supports ProRes encoding for PC. But it's nice that there's at least playback now, yeah...

Quote

No - I know who I'm talking about.

:-))) uh-huh... sure. Sorry, but if you only actually DID know...

Either way, I find it interesting to see which parts of the post you elegantly ignored. Speaks volumes.

l2l

[tallscot]

Quote

Erm... excuse me?? :-D It very well has been and even more IS true, sorry. Where do you get this stuff?

Nope, you are wrong. The only way you get it to work with Motion 3 and AE CS3 is you go change the filename's .motn extension to .mov manually in the Finder. You then have to change the .mov to .motn to edit it back in Motion, then back to .mov to go back to AE. But as soon as you change the file name in the Finder, AE gives you an error and loses the file link.

Quote

Certain new feature's won't make the transition, but most definitatly not the file as a WHOLE.

Yes, the new features. That would be the point of mentioning CS4. Being the developer of Photoshop gives them that advantage.

>And sorry, for anyone that puts that amount of importance into Layer Effects while in an NLE(!) needs to do some serious thinking about his workflow. Editing PS files to that degree in an NLE as opposed to AE is just silly.

You don't get it, again. The PS styles come in as native AE styles, so you are editing them in AE. That's the whole point! But you used to work for Adobe, so you know all this. LOL

[tallscot]

Quote

LOL... what?? Sorry, that completely disqualifies you for any sort of discussion.

Motion doesn't export sound to FCP - period.

Quote

That adds to the above. Using Compressor for export from Motion is complete nonsense, since Compressor doesn't use Motion's real-time engine and therfore would export far slower than Motion itself.

You are once again showing you don't know what you are talking about.

Compressor uses the GPU, as does every Pro App that imports native Motion project files, and it renders it at the same speed (or even faster if you close Motion).

But the biggest reason you would want to use Compressor is to do a batch, of course. That's the point of Compressor, really.

Again, I was correcting you touting the interoperability between all the FCS apps. Now you are dismissing the feature you were touting just a few moments ago after I corrected you.

[eaddison]

lin2log - did Adobe fire you or something? I've never seen anyone so bent on just condemning a piece of software you're, by your own addmission, not that familiar with.

I'm sorry I don't have the time to argue all your points - I've got clients that are waiting on videos to be edited. Maybe I'll check back when I have more free time.

It sounds like the person who doesn't know what they're talking about is you. You said FCP handled P2 files native - I proved it doesn't, but somehow I'm wrong. You made claims about PPro that were wrong - I pointed those out.

You don't even seem to grasp, that the "re-wrapping" is technically nothing more than if you were to install a plug-in for Photoshop...

Um...see, the whole point of what I was trying to tell you was that FCP can't open MXF files without converting them...I grasp what's happening. If left with the choice of just importing right from the card and starting to edit, or having to copy then transfer footage before I can start editing, I'll always take the quicker route. Who wouldn't? Even a die hard FCP user would have to admit that anything the speeds up the editing process is a good thing.

As for my comment about Shake, you were the one who brought it up when I compared AE to Motion - Shake was (is) a great program. Too bad Apple discontinued it. But AE continues on getting better...Shake, well it's gone the way of the Dodo. If Apple comes out with something to replace it, then great - one more tool to use.

Others seem to be proving that the integration between FCP and other FCS studio is good, but could be improved.

Tell me, are you ever wrong?

I don't make the claim that PPro is the worlds best editor...but sure seem to want everyone that it's nothing compared to FCP.

[tallscot]

Quote

As for my comment about Shake, you were the one who brought it up when I compared AE to Motion

LOL. He does that quite a bit, doesn't he?

"What about Shake?!!"

"It's not shipping anymore."

"Who cares about Shake?"

[mcdonkeyboy]

old injun saying: man who LOLs at own lame geek jokelets, needs anal probing from alien.

[lin2log]

eaddison said:

I've never seen anyone so bent on just condemning a piece of software you're, by your own addmission, not that familiar with.

LOL... cute. Unfortunately there are two very sad mistakes in that. Since for one I think highly of Premiere as a whole. It was my first software based NLE in '92 and it was without a doubt the best NLE of it's kind (which is actually kind of a scary thought). And I'm sure it still IS... under Windows. It was great until version 5. Then it became utterly useless and on top of that FCP came along and that was the beginning of the end... on the Mac. If you don't see or get that... oh well. Denial merely for the sake of self-justification is always a sad thing. Really.

Quote

I'm sorry I don't have the time to argue all your points - I've got clients that are waiting on videos to be edited.

Mmmh-hmmm... yeah. Right. :-))))

Quote

You said FCP handled P2 files native - I proved it doesn't, but somehow I'm wrong.

You proved... Wow. :-)))) So you're reading comprehension is = 0. Even from your own link?? Ouch. Sorry, but if you still actually haven't gotten it, I've got better things to do then to read you information which is readily available all over the net. First and foremost on Apple's website. "Native editing for P2 at 1080i 50/60/VFR and 720p 24/24N/25/25N/30/VFR from P2 cards"... but you, for the purpose of somehow saving face(?), have somehow conveniently redefined the word "native", for the sake of yet another straw. Whatever.

Quote

You made claims about PPro that were wrong - I pointed those out.

Uh-huh. Right. Feel free to point "those" out for me, since I seem to have missed it.

Quote

Um...see, the whole point of what I was trying to tell you was that FCP can't open MXF files without converting them...I grasp what's happening.

Okay. Fine. You go ahead and continue your circle around yourself. You're obviously missing certain intellectual properties to understand a very simple concept. But you seem to need to think you're right... no matter how absurd the argumentation. Aside from "converting" being something very different from "transcoding"

If left with the choice of just importing right from the card and starting to edit, or having to copy then transfer footage before I can start editing, I'll always take the quicker route.

OMG... rotflmao!! You are SERIOUSLY claiming you edit directly from the P2 disk??!! LOL!! That's just plain brilliant!

Thank you. Now I finally and definitely know what level I'm dealing with here. I'm glad we could clear that up after all. Now feel free to admit that you've never even SEEN a P2 disk, let alone WORKED with one, then we're fine.

As for my comment about Shake, you were the one who brought it up when I compared AE to Motion

Um, yeah... so? And instead of simply staying OT, you slip in some completely extraneous jab about it's pricing history. Huh?? One word: straws

But hey, at least you have tallscot as your new bestest buddy! Maybe he'll make some room for you in that little corner he's standing in with his back against the wall due to lack of any real clues but the more ad hominem arguments. But don't bother him too much, he's still busy trying to figure out how to set up his system for the very basic task of .motn import into AE. That drag and drop thing can be a real bitch.

If Apple comes out with something to replace it, then great - one more tool to use.

Sure. For the Mac. And Apple of course is in the well known habit of running around buying companies and software technology for the sole purpose of letting them disappear a la Microsoft. So of course there's not a snowball's chance that they're gonna come out with something that uses all of Nothing Real's amazing algorithms combined with Apple's own unique and powerful technologies.

Bummer.

Others seem to be proving that the integration between FCP and other FCS studio is good, but could be improved.

I don't actually recall ever claiming that FCP's "round-tripping" is in any way perfect. In fact I'm the first to say that sending an entire timeline to Motion (something I'd never actually do btw since that's plain moronic, as much as it is for PPro and AE) is by far not as good as Adobe's "Dynamic Linking" in terms fo how much actually is perserved in terms of filters, transitions etc. But as I've said: for me that's a very small price to pay considering what I DO have. The enchilada, remember?

Tell me, are you ever wrong?

Sure. Unfortunately you make it unfairly easy for me to be right.

I don't make the claim that PPro is the worlds best editor...but sure seem to want everyone that it's nothing compared to FCP.

Hmmm... not actually sure if that was a real sentence. But bottom line (assuming I'm half getting what that's supposed to mean): try injecting some objectivity into that campaign for PPro's honor of yours. And maybe catch the fact that I never even claimed PPro to be crap IN ITSELF. It has a very well deserved and honorable spot in the world of NLE's. I'd most definitely be using it... if FCP didn't exist and/or I were a WINDOWS user. You might want to think about why you're taking it so personal. Not so sure about your decision maybe?

Aside from the fact that I was speaking of FCP ONLY in comparison to PPro ONLY. I'm an A.C.E. in After Effects and have been using it since even way before Adobe had ever heard of it, so I'm very well aware of how great a program it is. But to act as if the possibility of sending an entire A/B edit to AE is somehow a superb feature (as if anyone in their right mind would actually consider doing that... FOR WHAT even?), whereby the same goes for FCP and Motion, is ludicrous. Fact is: AE is light-years ahead of Motion and Shake in terms of motion graphics, whereby Shake is ahead of AE in compositing. Same goes for DVD SP being far more professional than Encore. And some silly short-term ability to burn BD's doesn't change a thing. And so on and so on and so on. ANY good studio has a huge mix and match of tools since no one package is perfect. But then again, I never even said anything along the lines of "perfect", that's merely your defensive interpretation. If anything, I spoke of BETTER and even then only under specific circumstances and perspectives. I really don't care if they apply to you or whether you think they're valid points or not.

If you work best and fastest with Premiere, great. It's a superb NLE without a doubt. But if you can't muster up enough reading comprehension to catch the fact that in my initial post I was merely speaking of the MAC MARKET and claiming NEW MARKET/USERS being little more than a moist dream for Adobe, then fine. Rant away. But to think or claim that anyone NEW to editing on the Mac (again: I spoke of nothing else!) is going to go with Premiere is plain ridiculous. E.g.: Try checking with any major training centers or online trainers/podcasts (Ripple, DMTS, Total Training to name only a few) and tell me why the ratio of what is offered in training for both FCP and PPro is an easy 10 if not 20:1. Even the AVID to PPro ratio is most likely still 5:1... I think it's actually an easy one to figure out why..

If anything, then the PRO market is a question of AVID or FCP. Premiere isn't a player. Period. MAYBE once Avid is dead.

l2l

[lin2log]

tallscot said:

But the main point here is DVD SP does no BD authoring and Encore does.

Which btw shows how little clue you actually have of the subject. So Encore does BD AUTHORING does it? LOL... so now "authoring" is reduced to the mere capability of burning to a BD, nothing more. Gotcha.

As I already wrote, but you obviously chose to miss, or just simply don't grasp: Encore does zero (zilch, nada, nothing, yes?) in terms of HDi or BD-J, so tell me: what's so BD AUTHORING about that? :-))) It works out to exactly the same thing as if you were to author a HD-DVD in DVD SP and simply burn it to BD via Toast or even a HD-DVD, since any and every BD player can play HD-DVDs... gettin it? In fact the HD-DVD done in DVD SP would have much higher quality and functionality potential than anything you can get out of Encore, sorry.

I even doubt very much that Encore's "BD-authoring" (lol) will ever amount to much more than it currently is, since they haven't even managed to implement BASIC scripting yet. DVD SP will undoubtedly have full HDi and BD-J support/scripting.

And FYI: BD support is slated for 10.5.6 which is just around the corner. Subsequently updating DVD SP for mere BD burning like Encore does, is hardly a huge task. Pffff...

[tallscot]

>So Encore does BD AUTHORING does it? LOL... so now "authoring" is reduced to the mere capability of burning to a BD, nothing more.

Wrong again. It has interactivity with menus, buttons, chapter markers, First Play, End Jump, etc. CS4 has pop-up menus.

DVD Studio Pro doesn't do Blu-ray at all.

Quote

In fact the HD-DVD done in DVD SP would have much higher quality and functionality potential than anything you can get out of Encore, sorry.

Once again, you show us you don't know what you are talking about.

HD-DVD in DVD SP has been a nightmare. The simple Loop function doesn't work on half the players and all the scripting you keep touting is moot.

HD DVD and Blu-ray use the same exact codec on the Mac. In fact, you use the HD DVD encoding presets in Compressor to create the assets for a Blu-ray disc burned with Toast, though it's recommended you use Toast's encoder because Compressor's doesn't produce as good a quality.

So with Apple's software, you edit in FCP, export assets as self-contained movie (which takes hours), bring into Toast, use Toast's gaudy templates with very limited customization ability, use Toast's clunky user interface, burn disc.

With Adobe, you edit in Premiere Pro, tell it to take the footage to Encore (no export for hours like Apple's solution), insert menus (which you can Edit Original in Photoshop or import from Photoshop, unlike Toast), assign buttons, End Jump, etc., burn to disc.

Quote

And FYI: BD support is slated for 10.5.6 which is just around the corner.

Yeah, "Just wait!" for the next DVD Studio Pro and "Just wait!" for 10.5.6. Uh huh. I hope there is a new version and I hope it kicks ass. I hope it doesn't have as many bugs as Motion 3...

At this point, it's clear you are completely full of it, you have been wrong so many times in this thread.

[lin2log]

LOL! That post was just SO full of the usual ad hominem bs, that merely shows you quite obviously don't even possess the most BASIC knowledge or skills for editing, authoring and new media on a mac, that I'm not even going to waste my time responding in detail... it's just a little too sad.

But thanks for the great entertainment. Just try not to repeat the same bs over and over and over again next time. Just because everyone laughs their heads off the first time, doesn't mean they'll keep doing it EVERY time, sorry.