Cinema Tools for Final Cut Pro 142
batobin writes "Looks like Apple is expanding their grasp on the film editing industry with their new release of Cinema Tools for Final Cut Pro. It enables FCP 3 to better manage film and 24 fps high density video. The product is expected to ship in May."
iPod Category? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:iPod Category? (Score:1)
Re:iPod Category? (Score:2, Funny)
You'll have buy 128 poddies though and daisy chain them together... Plus a diesel generator...
What's wrong with just using vi to edit. (Score:4, Funny)
Buyout (Score:4, Informative)
Impressive product nonetheless !
What is more fascinating : consider this 24P stuff from a bandwidth point of view and think about the recent firewire related news. Native HD is going to require quite a bit more firewire bandwidth than 400mbps. Can 1600mbps firwire be that far behind?
And Shake and Tremour as well (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Buyout (Score:2)
Re:Buyout (Score:1)
How far is that from product implementation, though? I thought the next step was going to be 800Mbps.
Re:Buyout (Score:2)
Re:Buyout (Score:2)
Re:Buyout (Score:1)
I thnk this [apple.com] is aimed more at FCP users who don't want to export their Edit Descision List to a Avid format before they make the "final cut." This allows editors to import a 720 x 486 version of their footage, edit it in the familliar FCP interface, and export the EDL to be procesed at a post-production faculity. At least where film is concerned.
Awright! Time to ditch Premiere! (Score:2, Funny)
Premiere is okay for those of you who have not had the religious experience that is working with AVID. Compared to AVID, Premiere is a worthless, Pinnacle Video-level sack of bits.
Now, Premiere's After Effects/Photoshop intergration is incredibly sweet, something that AVIDDV doesn't do exactly right.
Also, AVIDDV is NT-only for some goddamned reason (unless that's changed since I knuckled under and spent $2k on the NT port). So, once I get this new software, I'll actually be able to USE the G4 machine that, because I've no professional-level editing software for it, has been sitting on my desk, gathering dust.
Re:Awright! Time to ditch Premiere! (Score:2, Informative)
$4000 CHEAP! (Score:5, Informative)
Just for the software.
Add in an AVIDMedia Capture Card, that's your paltry $4k right there, just for the capture card.
Add in the Film Capture device, another $12-15k. Then you've got your RAIDs, your SP decks ($8-12k, depending on the brand), your monitors (not cheapass NTSC teevees, we're talking real-live production monitors, they run about $500 each, and you need at least one), and not to mention minimum of TWO >19" monitors to edit with.
All in all, to edit film on an AVID system, you're looking at about $65k for a "good" system.
$4k for a G4 box and the Final Cut bundle = DIRT FUCKING CHEAP.
Not to mention that the people that this software is marketed to make $4k on a slow week (shit, I videograph weddings and parties and I make $50/hr)
Re:$4000 CHEAP! (Score:2, Funny)
I guess that's why you are the Vidmaster...
Vidmaster cut faster, vid vid vidmaster
freak freak
Re:$4000 CHEAP! (Score:1)
Re:you get what you pay for . period (Score:2)
The second house was able to under-bid the first one because they bought twenty G4s with FCP to do their off-lining, instead of 20 Avid Media Composers. The G4s cost about $8,000 apiece, while a Media Composer goes for somewhere around $100,000. So the second house kept their expenses down, under-bid the job, and got the work.
For film editing, yeah, quality costs. But quality only matters when you go to do the final edit. The vast majority of the work is done in the offline, and if you can cut costs there, you're doing it right.
Basically you don't know what you're talking about.
no, actually *you're* off base. (Score:1, Insightful)
First factor is the editor. Bar none, the job will go to top-notch talent. We fly out to LA just to get the best color correction people, even for a 3 hour transfer.
Second, and closely linked is the gear: good talent won't stay that far behind the technology curve. And for good reason: who will stay at the console waiting for your consumer-grade machines to render an effect 20 times slower than the pro job? No one, not even the clients.
Amazingly, third actually is the cost, just ahead of who owes who a blowjob in the industry.
Now back to gear, let's look seriously at what your 'G4 with FCP' will look like. You'll still need a terabyte or so of diskspace for video storage, so buy a NetApp or build your own disk array. You'll need some serious digitize cards to pull in video in realtime. You'll need production grade monitors to get good color, otherwise you'll spend days in transfer doing what you could have done in off-line. You'll need edit decks, most enjoy DigiBetas, but in your 'low-cost' example, 3/4"'s could suffice - you'll just be contracting to dub houses later. You'll want some effects boards to test concepts in semi-realtime; I suppose you could build a beowulf cluster to do that, and then write your own software....
Each of these adds up in time spent there, or time spent in finish, which, I might add, costs 10 times off-line in hourly costs. So when you say:
I point out that quality matters all the way through the process, or you'll pay for it all in the final edit. And the resulting cost will keep your clients from coming back. You don't know what you're talking about: edit shops like you describe open all the time, and they invariably go out of business.Re:you get what you pay for . period (Score:1)
Re:you get what you pay for . period (Score:2)
Re:$4000 CHEAP! (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm. Given that you can't even get a Media Composer for less than about $30,000, stripped, I'd say you're way off here. The Film Composer starting price is around $70,000, not counting storage.
your monitors (not cheapass NTSC teevees, we're talking real-live production monitors, they run about $500 each, and you need at least one)
Again I must say hmm. Maybe you're talking about a used 14" PVM or something. A decent BVM will cost you at least ten times that figure. More if you get the SDI input option.
All in all, to edit film on an AVID system, you're looking at about $65k for a "good" system.
No, all in all, to edit film on an Avid, you're looking at a base, entry, can't-do-it-for-less price of $70,000 or so. A "good" system will run you around $200,000.
Just thought I'd clarify that a bit.
Re:$4000 CHEAP! (Score:1)
Re:$4000 CHEAP! (Score:1)
Re:$4000 CHEAP! (think again) (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd like to know what free software does that. I've looked, believe me. The closest I can find is Broadcast 2000, but it's still nowhere close for a film project.
If you're interestested in some of the issues involved w/picture & sound editing, see this site [filmmaker.com] and especially this article [filmmaker.com]
Re:Yes (Score:1)
There was quite a stink about that recently.
Hacker Mating Rituals (Score:5, Funny)
Hackers? Mating? Wouldn't this just be a lot of stories about late nights looking at Pr0n?
Re:Hacker Mating Rituals (Score:2)
--Dan
apple (Score:1)
Re:apple (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:apple (Score:4, Interesting)
Well one can be pushed out of a niche. For example it is a big pain to try to use Canon's EOS-D30 or D60 RAW conversion software on a Mac...unless you run OS9. For Windows Canon has decided to support NT2000, WinME and XP, but still no OSX support. That is for a $2000 camera (or if you were lucky $1499 referb for the D30). I doubt that would happen if Canon thought Apple had the same kind of market share (photogs, not "normal people") as Wintel does.
Or look at desktop publishing, in the mid-80s the Mac was it. PCs were good for accountants, but if you wanted page layouts, it was Mac all the way. Now windows does it well enough that nobody cares.
Pushing into niche markets is a good idea for Apple, but that alone isn't enough because they are too hard to defend.
Re:apple (Score:1)
Re:apple (Score:2)
Sure, except it has three signifigant advantages over the F60. It comes with effectavly 1000s of rolls of free film and proccessing (not printing though), the proccessing is instant not "one hour" including a histogram, and lastly they mount Canon lenses :-)
Instant processing and the histogram are really useful tools for learning how to use complex lighting setups.
Could be, but currently Nikon has NEF, Canon has RAW, Sigma and Fuji have their own formats (both new this year). Since the "raw" format is closely tied to the color filter array layout, and the spacing of the sensors on the CCD/CMOS I'm not sure there will be a standard for it, unless those things stabalise (say, a grid pattern for sensors, and X3-like RGB samples at each pixel...or a Fuji like honeycomb layout).
I don't think Apple's hardware is more reliable then Wintel hardware. Their software tends to be though.
Recently Apple has been doing pretty much everything right. If they keep it up PJs will still use PowerBooks. If they have a few major screwups there could easially be no more Apple. I'm hoping they keep doing it all right.
Re:apple (Score:1)
Of course, Nikon lenses are far superior to Canon! Shit, they're almost as good as Zeiss!
Re:apple (Score:2)
Heh, say that after you handle the 70-200L f/2.8 IS :-)
(yeah, yeah, they both make great lenses...so does Pentax and Minolta for that matter)
All cameras are transitional, some more then most.
If you mean what covers the same field as a 50mm yes a 31.25mm covers it. If you mean what do I carry on it most of the time, well a 50mm. I like long lenses, and using a 50mm f/1.4 is way way less expensive then a 85mm f/1.2, like half the cost of the camera less expensive :-)
I'm not quite as fond of what it does to my 100mm for people pictures, but it gives a little more range for macro shots.
It sure looks like Canon is looking to get closer to full frame. They do have the 1.6x of the D30/D60 and the 1.3x of the 1D. Lots of people want full frame. More people just want wide angles. Problem is CCDs (and I guess) CMOS sensors have more light fall off problems then film, so it is possible there is really no way to get full 35mm frame coverage without designing new lenses!
All of Nikon's digitals have used the exact same multiplier. There is some chance they are going to make a new set of lenses designed to cover just that. They can be lighter and cheaper that way, and if they can make some really really wide angles, they might manage to do it. It could work out really well. It is also in line with things they have done in the past (like G lenses). It is also possible they are reaching for full frame like everyone else.
Sigma's CCD is smaller then Canon's D30/D60 sensor. Contax's N1 is a year late, and they missed two more deadlines in as many months. I think it is a cool product, and would love to see it on the market. The CCD it uses has been out for like 2 or 3 years!
(you forgot to list the porn industry, I would imagine the D30/D60/D100 would work great there; it also works well for finding the right levels for studio lights)
I'm not sure the D30/D60 is up to PJ standards. Not waterproof, not the best AF. I think the Nikon D100 has better AF, but still isn't waterproof. It is also a whole lot easier to learn new technique on.
I'm a bit under a year from saving enough on film and processing to pay for my D30 based on my old usage rate. I'm probably four months from it if you look at my current shooting rates. Since I don't really think I want a D60, I don't see it as dumb since I'll almost definitely save enough to make the D30 free before I no longer want the D30.
Besides, I have more fun with the D30, so from that point of view it's been a better purchase then my last VCR, a lot of recent book buys, some movies I have been too, and some of the cable (er, satellite) channels. I still have a blast when I pick it up.
Re:apple (Score:1)
I used to work as a PJ and plenty of people used to use things like EOS5s and Nikon F801s (N8008s), as well tough gear like EOS1s and F3s and F4s. I used to use two Contax 167s and an RTS3 - only got my beautiful RTS now
Obviously, I want to see the N Digital, but the cost is just stupid when you compare with film - I also feel that the in camera processing and storage situation needs more time, Canon has done well with the EOS 1D in terms of speed, but I played with a D30 and found it's slow responses really hard to come to terms with. Don't forget, RTS stands for Real Time System
Re:apple (Score:2)
What part of the D30 seemed slow? I know the focus is slow, but if you prefocus it seems fast to me. They did halve the release response time in the D60, but since I havn't used one I can't say if that is really noticable, so I'm wondering...
(actually yesterday I was taking shots of the distorted reflections from an office building, and a bird flew across and I mashed the shutter, the camera seemed slow to react...but I think at least half of that was my thumb not responding...)
That's for sure. The AF on low end digital cameras still isn't up to the AF on film cameras (except maybe on the D100). Aside from that we know CPUs tend to get faster, and memory tends to get bigger for the same price, so processing should get better...well as long as we don't keep growing the image size :-)
I don't think you will be able to get a camera like the D30 in 2 years (you can't get one from Nikon, Fuji, or Canon now...and I don't think the Sigma is really the same, but I would like to see a real review). It would be nice if the low end DSLRs were under $1k though. Not so nice if they stick to the old lame Canon IX AF system though. That just has to go!
Re:apple (Score:1)
Re:apple (Score:1)
Smaller light path, pretty much the same size as an APS SLR. They used a AF module from their last APS SLR. However their last APS SLR was some time ago, and an intro level AF system, so it is no worse then the AF from an EOS-IX, which was about the same as the EOS Rebel of the same era. However the Rebel has gotten better since then, and $2000 EOS cameras have much better AF then the old IX...except for the $2000 D30/D60...
Thanks, I guess I never noticed that compaired to my ELAN. It is definitly much faster then the digital P&S cameras by a half second to a full second, so I guess the ~0.1 second delay seems like nothing to someone use to more, and a whole lot to someone who is use to none.
Does your RTS have a pellicle mirror?
About the same as the low end film cameras (twice as fast as the Rebel 2000, slightly slower then the ELAN 7). Slower then $2000 film cameras though.
Even the EOS-1D's 8 fps is slower then the EOS RT's 10 fps.
RAM prices will have to drop a lot before affordable digitals can do that...or FLASH has to get a whole lot faster. The D30 had some odd buffer behaviour -- if you release the shutter it has to drain the buffer before you can take more shots (even if it is say, half empty). The D60 fixed that.
Maybe JPEG2000 will help a bit, smaller images means less I/O...if they can be compressed fast enough.
Re:apple (Score:2)
I think your delay is because of one of the more aggraviting features of the D30 - if you press the shutter the moment the autofocus is confused by something, it will refuse to take the picture. There should be some kind of override (say pressing the shutter release harder or something). Problem is that you lose pictures which would be useful to have even if the focus wasn't perfect, such as birds outdoors at f/22, which are going to be in decent focus no matter what you do.
I solve the problem by using manual focus most of the time, but sometimes you really need the speed of an autofocus system, especially for the aforementioned birds.
Other than that and with continuous shooting filling up the buffer, I've never had any trouble with the D30's responsiveness.
And it's probably just as well I didn't wait and get the D60, since the pictures would be double the size, and they're already plenty big. Or maybe that's a rationalization. You decide.
D
Re:apple (Score:2)
There are several overides (and they are available on most EOS cameras, not just the D30). First in AI Focus the inital frame will be taken even if there is no focus lock. Second in MF mode as you say the camera does not wait for focus lock. Third if you use CF4 (I think 4 -- it is 4 on most EOS cameras) to assign AE only to shutter and AF to * then a full press of the shutter takes the picture even without focus lock. That is the mode I use it in because it makes the focus-meter-compose dance much quicker (at least in the M exposure mode). The huge downside is on the EOS-D30 you lose the ability to do flash exposure lock because that is on the * key! You also lose AE lock, but when you shoot in M there isn't an AE lock because it isn't needed.
As an aside except for the EOS-D30/D60 all EOS cameras over $1000 have a dedicated FEL button (EOS-3 and EOS-1v, and I thjink the old A3E, and old 1/1n/1RS).
I normally don't, but once in a while...
Well it isn't a slam dunk that's for sure. I think the pictures look somewhat better (esp at higher ISOs), and there is way more margin for cropping, but I'm glad I had the extra months of joy from the D30 :-) If the D60 had better AF there is a chance I would buy one (and sell the D30, or keep it for backup).
Re:apple (Score:1)
High Density Video? (Score:4, Informative)
That's a new one on me. I think you meant "high-definition (HD) video."
Re:24 Fps ? (Score:1)
24fps is cinematic (big screen) frame rate. Unless you have just guzzled a case of Jolt Espresso [thinkgeek.com], you probably aren't able to see the difference in a movie. 3D graphics sometimes need the extra kick to not look choppy, though.
Re:High Density Video? (Score:1)
Re:High Density Video? (Score:1)
Too many acronyms to remember, I guess...
HD Cinema display (Score:1)
Need a comparison (Score:1)
Re:Need a comparison (Score:1)
Final Cut Pro is amazing when you consider it comes from a company who have never really ventured into this sort of product previously.
Re:Need a comparison (Score:1)
Give Apple credit ... (Score:2)
Macromedia seems like a pretty stupid company now, no?
I hope the development folks are well-compensated; they've earned it.
D
A bit for your buck. (Score:2, Funny)
(from http://www.apple.com/cinematools/specs.html)
So $1K AMR for a 10Mb piece of software. They could at least put in a few DVD's of Job's famous "never been done before" speaches and
maybe one of his turtleneck shirts or something. And I thought Adobe was nuts for charging $1+ for photoshop and a per page fee for a usable version of Acrobat.
Sure the size of the program has nothing to do with it's value though when you spend a bucket of cash you feel ripped off when you are returned with just a sandwich bag of product.
Re:A bit for your buck. (Score:1)
Re:A bit for your buck. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well to be honest most people don't need this product, so trying to make a profit (or clear the dev costs) is going to need high prices. Heck, most people don't have DV cams, and most of the ones that do can get by with iMovie. Of the ones that can't get by with iMovie, most don't need more then what Final Cut Pro does. The few that do can afford $1000, right? And since there are only 300 or so people that need it, charging $30 won't make the dev costs back at all...
First we bitch at MS for making a 12G install of MS Office because it's too bloated, and now at Apple for producing a lean mean fighting machine?
Re:A bit for your buck. (Score:2)
I've done this with a couple of programs (Final Cut Pro, After Effects production bundle), and it's always gone splendidly well for me. And yes, they are full, registerable versions. Just watch out for Academic versions; if there's any ambiguity at all in the listing, ask.
D
Re:A bit for your buck. (Score:2)
Thanks for the tip. I may try it on PhotoShop.
=minimum required install (Score:2)
FCP and Film (Score:1)
Re:FCP and Film (Score:1)
icon (Score:2)
Re:icon (Score:1)
There's a bit in the OfflineRT [apple.com] section of the FCP pages that mentions using the iPod as storage, but no on-Pod editing.
I think the iPod's wheel/buttons would make editing a breeze... I wonder if we could get apple to use the iPod's controller for editing... Get a mouse/iPod interface and hardly touch the keyboard...
Then again, maybe not. : )
Solution to Poincare Conjecture on film at 11! (Score:1)
Why this is significant (Score:1)
Also this allows you to mix 29.97 fps NTSC with 24fps film capture! This is an enabling product for Apple and will open many doors in the movie industry.
OT: Are there any decent open source video tools (Score:1)
Re:OT: Are there any decent open source video tool (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:OT: Are there any decent open source video tool (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.schirmacher.de/arne/kino/
Then there was Broadcast2000 (which mig still be availble via sourceforge). Check with Linux Media Arts :
http://www.linuxmediaarts.com
I Think they maintain Broadcast2000 now...
and for the non-OSS stuff check out
http://www.mainconcept.com
Re:OT: Are there any decent open source video tool (Score:2)
Re:OT: Are there any decent open source video tool (Score:1)
Re:OT: Are there any decent open source video tool (Score:1)
VirtualDub, Stupid! (Score:1)
Grasp? (Score:1)
I don't know if the software portion of Apple exactly has a "grasp" on film editing -- the hardware seems to get paired up with custom software from companies like Avid and Media 100.
Don't get me wrong, Final Cut Pro is a hell of a program, but it seems more of a median between iMovie and a serious editing package.
(I don't work in the field, but I work at a college with a pretty well-funded video editing program. So I could be mistaken; this is just my impression.)
--saint
Re:Grasp? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple gave us a set of tools in the 80's that democratized publishing. Took it out of the hands of those that could afford hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment and consumables, and required people who could learn to code, and made it so anyone with a few grand and no arcane technical skills could do it. Badly, of course, but neverthless....It demolished that industry. Then they democratized prepress, that industry is almost gone. (I know, I worked in both of those industries.) Now it's film. Jobs has said that movies are going to be the DTP of the 21st century (or words to that effect) I think he knows what he's doing. If you think of Hollywood as an association of typesetters in the mid-80's, you can see why they're fighting anything that lets people create/use media on computers. The train is coming. More and more independent films made, more ways of distributing new content than just showing in theatres, etc., etc.
Sam Goldwyn, we're coming for you...
Re:Grasp? (Score:1)
Shops that used to have 5 AVID systems now have 1 AVID and 4 FCP stations. Not only is FCP demolishing the NLE market, but everything related to it.
Unfortunately, FCP isn't a true substitution for an AVID or Media 100, but it is close enough that most people don't care and don't really notice the difference.
FCP is a valid application...... (Score:3, Insightful)
anyway, the choice of editing applications, in many cases, is personal taste.... not unlike the ongoing war over Adobe or Quark for a layout application. though in that case i think Quark is dropping the ball on the Apple front by stalling their OS X ready version. Adobe has theirs, and it seems a lot of Quark Express diehards are taking it for a spin for that reason alone.
Re:Grasp? (Score:1)
A friend of mine is a professional online editor, he has been editing television on Avid MediaComposer and Xpress for at least three years now, but has recently picked up a job at a company doing high-end TVC work with FCP. They made the switch big time, retired their old Avid MC to the sidelines as an offline suite and do all their final edits with FCP, After Effects and Combustion.
It's also making it's way into a number of the local TV production houses as they start to look at doing more editing in-house rather than paying $300/hr for an Avid online suite.
Personally, I much prefer editing on FCP to Avid now, the interface is a little more natural and it just seems to flow better.
Re:Grasp? (Score:1)
It's worth noting (Score:1, Informative)
Final cut doing this will probably force Avid to enable it as well - and I'm all in favour of all editing software becoming more powerful at a better price. Better for everyone!
DVX "powerpack" already includes software for tracking film key numbers for film matchback editing, so it's easy enough to go that way too, although it's not a "true" 24 frame edit.
Apple future... (Score:2)
Re:Apple future... (Score:2)
Either way, I think selling a quad-proc G4 (G5? We'll see what happens when they come out) bundled with Final Cut Pro/Cinema Tools and equipped with the latest (3.2Gbps?) Firewire spec, sporting a 23" cinema display would be the way to go. It'd cost a few (ten) grand, but it'd be worth it.
--Dan
at least Apple knows their target market (Score:2, Funny)
Quake III Arena.
Absolutely marvelous! (Score:2, Insightful)
Suppose you are a student, or in education; you can get FCP 3 for a mere $300 and the Cinema tools for the same. That's $600 for a LOT of power. It is absolutely marvelous that apple values students enough to offer so much for so little, not even Micro$oft has such discounts as Apple when it comes to giving the ability to learn important software ($1,400 wow!). This is further demonstrated by their student developer plan [apple.com]. I'm glad someone thinks we're important.
Re:Absolutely marvelous! (Score:2)
Sure, Apple does discount more than Microsoft. But remember, that just means they have a different business plan, and put their efforts in the future, not the present.
This is the same as when countries must find a balance between investing in consumer goods and capital goods. Money spent on consumer goods = a nice today. Money spent on capital goods = a nicer tomorrow.
Re:Absolutely marvelous! (Score:1)
Re:Absolutely marvelous! (Score:1)
Basically, running the site just got to be a hassle. I had to deal with advertisers to keep my server running, and web advertising isn't doing so hot these days.
Ever since I stopped posting I've been meaning to re-visit the site and fix it up. I get free hosting these days, mostly because I run my own web hosting company (www.tobinhosting.com). The site might be a nice way for me to voice my opinion whenever the urge overtakes me.
Anyway, that's what happened. If you liked the site, I'm sorry it's currently dead. If you didn't like the site, well, screw you too.
Re:Absolutely marvelous! (Score:1)
Re:Absolutely marvelous! (Score:1)
I think the part I miss most was the quotes contest. *sniff* *sniff*. Those were the good old days.
Re:Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Statements like that are what are wrong with us today.
When do you need to make cinema-quality video? I understand people wanting the cool technology, but at some point you have to be content. You have to accept that you can never have the newest/fastest/coolest/best thing for very long (unless you have a 7 figure disposable income).
People claim they can't live without Photoshop, and they actively obtain the newest version. But how many people stop to think "Gee, I've been using Photoshop for 8 years now, maybe I should save up and buy a copy."
I'm not a software purist, who has sent a check to every shareware developer whose program he has used more than twice. I won't say that I don't have any software I didn't pay for, (I use IE and Mozilla ;) but I have paid for software I considered worthwhile. That includes a legal copy of Photoshop.
The reality is that we end up spending money on the software we don't own and don't need. If you ever bought a bigger hard drive instead of deleting LightWave, 3D Studio Max, and Maya, you spent money on that software. If you really use the software regularly, for more than playing around, it's probably worth investing money in. If you use it for an occupation, you have probably considered the legal implications.
I won't waste my time telling people not to steal software. Just consider the makers. If nobody bought Photoshop, Adobe would give up on it. If you and 9 friends all use Photoshop frequently, get together and buy it. Is it what Adobe wants? No. Is it better for Adobe than getting a copy on KaZaA? Yes.
Just my opinion.
--
Freedom of information doesn't mean information should be free. Just because you can read the book doesn't mean you shouldn't pay for it.
Re:Cool (Score:1)
I didn't intend to indicate the software was useless. However, the average user (i.e. "home movie spectaculars") doesn't need it. If you are a professional who needs the film-quality editing, then this is a great thing.
And you can pay for it.
Re:Cool (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah! And why do these damn programmers get paid so much anyway? It's just typing, for chrissakes!
Re:Cool (Score:1)
Re:Listen, you presumtuous little fuck... (Score:1)