[mvallance]

I previously wrote: Apple now needs to develop a new iMovie - one that is so simple to use that teachers can focus on teaching WITH the technology and not ABOUT the technology.

Dan Frakes replied: I'm a bit confused by your comments here. In my opinion, iMovie '08 is considerably easier to use -- especially for a beginner -- than iMovie HD was. (In fact, that was the biggest criticism of '08: It was too simple and lacking too many features.)
=======

Thank you Dan for responding. However, I think your opinion is rather presumptuous and bordering on arrogant. As an educator who has been using iMovie with hundreds of students (at universities in UK, Singapore and Japan) and children (as young as 6 in UK and Singapore) the original iMovie has been straightforward so we could focus upon educational topics in science, arts, language arts, citizenship, etc. In the past few months iMovie 08 has been far too difficult and time consuming when using with students so we have reverted to iMovie HD and, guess what, the kids just get it. Please be a tad more humble when expressing strong beliefs. Provide evidence, examples, scenarios, etc.
I still contend Apple needs to return to its roots of cool simplicity for some apps (iMovie) and amazing functional power for others (Final Cut Express).

[dwboston4]

At nearly the very end of your review, you recited the magic words "chapter markers" With iMovie 09 restoring chapter markers and the ability to automatically send an iMovie project to iDVD, Apple has made a huge step for me. I removed the iMovie 08 application logo from my dock and replaced with with the older version of iMovie HD when Apple downgraded so many of iMovie's great features at the expensive of eye candy features in 08. Looks like iMovie 09 will find a place on my dock again. Thanks for listening Apple.

[trip1ex]

mvallance said:

I previously wrote: Apple now needs to develop a new iMovie - one that is so simple to use that teachers can focus on teaching WITH the technology and not ABOUT the technology.

Dan Frakes replied: I'm a bit confused by your comments here. In my opinion, iMovie '08 is considerably easier to use -- especially for a beginner -- than iMovie HD was. (In fact, that was the biggest criticism of '08: It was too simple and lacking too many features.)
=======

Thank you Dan for responding. However, I think your opinion is rather presumptuous and bordering on arrogant. As an educator who has been using iMovie with hundreds of students (at universities in UK, Singapore and Japan) and children (as young as 6 in UK and Singapore) the original iMovie has been straightforward so we could focus upon educational topics in science, arts, language arts, citizenship, etc. In the past few months iMovie 08 has been far too difficult and time consuming when using with students so we have reverted to iMovie HD and, guess what, the kids just get it. Please be a tad more humble when expressing strong beliefs. Provide evidence, examples, scenarios, etc.
I still contend Apple needs to return to its roots of cool simplicity for some apps (iMovie) and amazing functional power for others (Final Cut Express).

IM08 is easy imo because it lets you see your entire movie clip library at a glance, skim through any clip quickly and easily by mousing over it and it lets you quickly grab any of those clips in your library by holding down the mouse button and highlighting the section you want and dragging it to your project board. Rinse, wash and repeat to cobble together a movie.

It's just like cutting and pasting sentences and paragraphs together to form a story. (Have you seen those party or educational games that have words on wood squares which you combine and rearrange to form sentences? Same thing as iMovie.)

And if some clips aren't desirable or you want to trim them down or move them you just use the mouse to highlight the offending portion and then drag it to where you want to move it or clip it to get rid of it.

I don't see how that ain't easy. ;)

[rladd]

I don't know Mr. Frakes, but I would like to come to his defense with regard to the idea that he is "arrogant" for expressing his opinion. It seems to me that the whole point of a discussion like this is to learn from people who have different opinions and perspectives.

I'm still wondering if iMovie 09 handles multiple audio tracks... I haven't figured out the best way to do this for iMovie 08 either. If it doesn't or if it is poorly implemented, would it make sense to export a movie to GarageBand, add audtio tracks there, and then import it back into iMovie?

Thanks.

[jeffcarlson]

iMovie '09 handles multiple audio tracks the same way iMovie '08 does - the interface just isn't obvious. You can drag an audio clip onto your filmstrip to add it as an audio track. As you add more clips, more tracks appear. You're not stuck with just two audio tracks, as in iMovie HD 6 and earlier. There's also a background audio track, which is a little wonky to get your head around. There's no need to go through GarageBand to add audio tracks, unless you've finished editing video and want to compose music in GarageBand timed to the images.

Jeff

[migeon]

Clearly the teacher's email trumps Frakes who simply dismisses classrooms'-worth of experiences.

For myself, here's the rub. *I can no longer make the movies I want to make! That's an utter failure on Apple's part.

Can 09 do it? I'd love it if it could. 1) where's the time line, THE most important and intuitive of all possible movie interfaces? 2) can I extract sound, cut it up and reassemble the parts in pieces and in different order? 3) can I control sound levels in order to level out volume, if necessary, syllable for syllable 4) has iDVD recovered the stroke it suffered? can it take an HD movie? 5) on and on, too much to list.

Dan, can you only imagine making a movie the way you want to? And only the kind of movie you want to? I consider your delight with scrubbing through clips in iMovie 08-09 trivial for my kind of use. Important for some, nice for me but far from essential. You should be able to look at an application from many different vantage points - beginner, expert, tiny movie, one hour movie. Instead, you dismiss 3/4 of the users of iMovie HD. I made my first iMovie HD virtually instantly. I tried out 08 and was left scratching my head - menus that didn't help, symbols I couldn't understand. I found the interface obtuse. And after finally assembling something, I found I had no control at the level I wanted. Any chance you can recover some sense of objectivity?

[bitrush]

In my experience when teaching, one should not rule out any tool as each student is different. Students must be encouraged to use whatever they feel comfortable with and feel confident in trying different approaches to solving creative problems. I introduce students first with imovie '06 via a stills montage and then a video ad, I then encourage them to try '08 and Final Cut Express and even use a combination of all three for specific parts of an edit. Each student makes a decision to use one both or all three. There is no one killer app when it comes to creating digital media. Creators access all kinds of apps to 'produce' a final DVD or movie, for example using photoshop to edit an imported slideshow image for their montage. This is surely the way to develop young minds to learn to cope with the stark reality of the forever morphing creative digital application ether as it attempts to evolve into the one be-all behemoth killer app (currently called osx).
One thing I hope they have thought about in the new version of imovie is how and where projects get stored. Can projects or 'events' be relocated or saved easily where they can be accessed by alternative workstations or users in a learning environment? It is very frustrating when I have to halt two student projects to enable one to continue work as someone is using 'their computer'. Students and teachers loose valuable time and begin to panic about deadlines when this frequently occurs. If mac is listening they might focus on the concept of universal user networking for video production students in a laboratory environment (and don't tell me idisk or a cloud - video editing should be natively and locally processed/rendered). Our schools' lab runs via an intel osx-server on a gigabit switch but I would not feel comfortable with online editing over the LAN for fear of video volatility, excess traffic and project security. Thus, my students need to able to mobilse projects such as in iMovie '06, where they simply transfer the imovie packaged file to another workstation and have me adjust the permissions. This is my one wish for the iMovie '09 version to be able to do, iMovie '08 butchers a project when event folders are moved, making them usable but unrecognisable to the student. The ultimate would be if I also didn't have to correct the event folders permissions. Students simply drag the project ('event') folder to the network shared drive or even access and move them from the alternative workstation to continue their projects on the available workstation. No sweat and a happy teaching environment for all. Let's hope that iMovie '09 shall have a fab new button that says "Swap To Alternate Workstation" or STAW for short....... Q.E.D

Neil Coggan
Media, Math , IT and ICT Teacher
Canberra College ACT Australia

[Dan Frakes]

mvallance said:

Dan Frakes replied: I'm a bit confused by your comments here. In my opinion, iMovie '08 is considerably easier to use -- especially for a beginner -- than iMovie HD was. (In fact, that was the biggest criticism of '08: It was too simple and lacking too many features.)
=======

Thank you Dan for responding. However, I think your opinion is rather presumptuous and bordering on arrogant...Please be a tad more humble when expressing strong beliefs.

It's fine to disagree; these forums are here for discussion. But I don't get how I was being "presumptuous and arrogant" by stating an opinion that differs from yours.

For what it's worth, the opinion in question is based on interactions with many Mac users--some of whom are, like you, educators--as well on comments about iMovie '08 vs. iMovie HD here in our forums and around the Web. That's not to say that my experiences are "better" than yours; it's only to point out that it's not "presumptuous and arrogant" to express an opinion, especially if that opinion is based on real data. Your experiences obviously differ, and that's fine.

[Dan Frakes]

migeon said:

Clearly the teacher's email trumps Frakes who simply dismisses classrooms'-worth of experiences...You should be able to look at an application from many different vantage points - beginner, expert, tiny movie, one hour movie. Instead, you dismiss 3/4 of the users of iMovie HD... Any chance you can recover some sense of objectivity?

Please go back and re-read my comment. Nowhere did I dismiss "3/4 of the users of iMovie HD" (whomever that mystery statistic is actually referring to). Nowhere did I say anything about iMovie's power, flexibility, editing features, or anything else. My only comment was very specific: that I personally feel iMovie '08's interface is easier to use, especially for beginners, than HD's interface. And as I noted in the previous comment, I formed that opinion, in part, based on feedback from many Mac users. If you disagree, that's fine, but disagree with what I wrote, not with some strawman.

[tallscot]

Dan,

I wish MacWorld would examine the giant hole in Apple's products that is AVCHD support. Right now, using a Mac for consumer camcorder capture, editing and playback is worse than on a Windows PC because Apple doesn't offer native AVCHD support in their hardware and software.

There is an inexpensive software application on Windows that lets you import natively, edit natively, and then burn it to disc natively for playback.

There are media extenders that support AVCHD, but Apple TV does not.

On the Mac, you have to transcode it into AIC as you import the footage, thus making a hard drive-based camcorder moot. One of the great features of a hard drive-based camcorder is you can transfer hours of footage to your computer in little time, much like an iPod with music. However, since Apple requires you to transcode the footage into AIC, you actually end up sitting there the same amount of time, at best, as you would importing DV footage in real time. At worst, you will sit there much longer than importing DV as your Mac transcodes.

And if you want to watch your edited footage on your TV, you have to transcode it again into a codec supported by your media extender. Burning it to BD isn't an option Apple offers yet.

So right now the new HD camcorder experience on a Mac is much, much worse than a DV camcorder from 10 years ago, and worse than the HD camcorder experience on the Windows PC.

Apple simply needs to put native AVCHD support in QuickTime and the Apple TV (like the PS3 and Xbox 360).

I wish MacWorld would expose this in their articles and reviews and pressure Apple.

Thanks

[Howmanoid]

tallscot said:

Quote

Right now, using a Mac for consumer camcorder capture, editing and playback is worse than on a Windows PC because Apple doesn't offer native AVCHD support in their hardware and software.

This just isn't correct. I've just spent over a week working with both iMovie '08 and Final Cut Studio 2 with hours of footage shot at 1080x60i (1920x1080) from a Sony HDR-SR12 and BOTH programs recognized the camera instantly and imported the video into their scratch area ready for editing.

Quote

There is an inexpensive software application on Windows that lets you import natively, edit natively, and then burn it to disc natively for playback.

No DVD spec supports AVCHD natively. It's all got to be transcoded to MPEG2.

Quote

There are media extenders that support AVCHD, but Apple TV does not.

No. Apple made HORRIBLE choice of supporting STANDARDS for AppleTV. How inconsiderate of them.

Quote

On the Mac, you have to transcode it into AIC as you import the footage, thus making a hard drive-based camcorder moot. One of the great features of a hard drive-based camcorder is you can transfer hours of footage to your computer in little time, much like an iPod with music. However, since Apple requires you to transcode the footage into AIC, you actually end up sitting there the same amount of time, at best, as you would importing DV footage in real time. At worst, you will sit there much longer than importing DV as your Mac transcodes.

Transcoding into a LESS COMPRESSED format is exactly what you want to do if you want a higher quality output and the flexibility to create finished product in any format you need.

And if you want to watch your edited footage on your TV, you have to transcode it again into a codec supported by your media extender. Burning it to BD isn't an option Apple offers yet.

No TVs support AVCHD, that's not Apple's fault.

So right now the new HD camcorder experience on a Mac is much, much worse than a DV camcorder from 10 years ago, and worse than the HD camcorder experience on the Windows PC.

Having spent years editing footage from my old Sony DCR-PC1 I've got to tell you that it's 10x easier and faster to work with footage from the SR12 and the results are clear, crisp and much more detailed than anything you'll get from DV video.

Apple simply needs to put native AVCHD support in QuickTime and the Apple TV (like the PS3 and Xbox 360).

And if or when they do, you're going to have to transcode that to be able to watch it on anything other than a computer.

[tallscot]

Quote

This just isn't correct. I've just spent over a week working with both iMovie '08 and Final Cut Studio 2 with hours of footage shot at 1080x60i (1920x1080) from a Sony HDR-SR12 and BOTH programs recognized the camera instantly and imported the video into their scratch area ready for editing.

I never claimed they don't. What I said is they don't support it natively. They transcode it on import. iMovie uses AIC and Final Cut Pro uses ProRes.

Quote

No DVD spec supports AVCHD natively. It's all got to be transcoded to MPEG2.

Who said anything about DVD?

Quote

No. Apple made HORRIBLE choice of supporting STANDARDS for AppleTV. How inconsiderate of them.

They don't support native AVCHD, thus you have to transcode it twice from import to playback.

Quote

Transcoding into a LESS COMPRESSED format is exactly what you want to do if you want a higher quality output and the flexibility to create finished product in any format you need.

Importing the native file and editing the native file and then playing back the native file is much better than transcoding into anything.

Quote

No TVs support AVCHD, that's not Apple's fault

Who said TV? I said media extender. The Apple TV doesn't support it. The PS3 and Xbox 360 and others do.

Having spent years editing footage from my old Sony DCR-PC1 I've got to tell you that it's 10x easier and faster to work with footage from the SR12 and the results are clear, crisp and much more detailed than anything you'll get from DV video.

HD is clearer and crisper than SD? Who knew! :)

You are missing the point. The point is if Apple simply supported AVCHD in QuickTime and in the Apple TV, I don't have to go through the timely process of transcoding twice to be able to see it with Apple's products. I can simply transfer the native files to my hard drive, just like I do with music files, and then I can watch those native files on my TV via the Apple TV, all within a few minutes.

And if or when they do, you're going to have to transcode that to be able to watch it on anything other than a computer.

You really aren't reading this well. Right now, I can copy the native AVCHD movie files to a computer and play it on my TV via a media extender that supports AVCHD. Apple TV is not one of them. It should be.

[Howmanoid]

tallscot said:

Quote

I never claimed they don't. What I said is they don't support it natively. They transcode it on import. iMovie uses AIC and Final Cut Pro uses ProRes.

FCP can use AIC too, you can chose. You have to transcode it. AVCHD is a compressed format, as such not every frame contains all the data, only the delta from the previous and last key frame. If you're going to do things like pixel by pixel comparison to enable things like image stabilization you need all the pixels from every frame. If you don't take the hit in transcoding up front, you take the hit by having to reassemble the entire frame when you apply the stabilization.

As far as taking a hit goes I imported ~30GB of footage from the camera. It didn't take much longer than it would to move 30GB of anything over USB2.

Quote

Who said anything about DVD?

Even the HD disc formats don't play back AVCHD natively. It's a derivative of the formats that they are based on.

Quote

They don't support native AVCHD, thus you have to transcode it twice from import to playback.

That would be because AVCHD isn't a widely adopted standard in anything other than HD and AppleTV only support 720p max.

Quote

Importing the native file and editing the native file and then playing back the native file is much better than transcoding into anything.

See comment above about editing compressed formats.


Who said TV? I said media extender. The Apple TV doesn't support it. The PS3 and Xbox 360 and others do.

AppleTV doesn't support any resolution higher than 720p. AVCHD is moot. Maybe they'll add it when it gets wider adoption but it's no real surprise that it isn't there now. Both Xbox and PS3 have massively powerful dedicated graphics processors that can handle a lot more resolution than aTV can so why support a codec that your hardware can't take advantage of?

> Having spent years editing footage from my old Sony DCR-PC1 I've got to tell you that it's 10x easier and faster to work with footage from the SR12 and the results are clear, crisp and much more detailed than anything you'll get from DV video.

HD is clearer and crisper than SD? Who knew! LOL

The point being it's easier and faster. Yeah, you'd hope HD looks better than SD but I've seen some horrible results from so-called HD cameras.

You really aren't reading this well. Right now, I can copy the native AVCHD movie files to a computer and play it on my TV via a media extender that supports AVCHD. Apple TV is not one of them. It should be.

720p.......... No cell processors......... no blood from a stone.......

[dreyfus]

tallscot said:

Importing the native file and editing the native file and then playing back the native file is much better than transcoding into anything.

This is true for a lot of scenarios, it is absolutely not true for AVCHD. AVCHD is by any standards a delivery format, not an editing format and absolutely every edit causes intensive internal decompression and buffering in the editing software. So, you always have a conversion - the difference is just: with Apple you have it in the beginning and then you can edit with good performance, even on a moderate machine (important for a large number of iMovie users, as it is a consumer product) - with "native" AVCHD editors "conversions" (mainly recovering intra-frame compression and buffering the intermediate data, then applying edits and re-compressing) take place on-the-fly, eating up considerable resources all the time.

Sony Vegas on the PC is doing "native" editing. Even on a 3.2GHz Quad with more RAM than the application can address, a 100% editing preview at full quality is barely possible and even the simplest edits take 5-8 times longer than editing an uncompressed format (with RAM full, massive file swapping and all cores running at max). Until computers triple or quadruple performance, generating an uncompressed editing format is the right thing, especially when there is a need to support less-than-actual hardware.