Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Apple Updates Professional Video Lineup 380

Posted by michael from the break-out-your-wallet dept.
BlueGecko writes "Amid surprisingly little fanfare, Apple today updated their entire professional video lineup, including DVD Studio Pro 2 (including a greatly improved menu editor and improved compression abilities), Final Cut Pro 4 (enhanced real-time editing, more customizable workflow, and an improved titling interface), and Shake 3--the first version of Shake to be Mac OS X-only and now sporting enhanced rotoscoping tools and the ability to work directly with Photoshop layers. Combine this with Logic and you've got an entire professional movie studio on your Mac."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Updates Professional Video Lineup More

Apple Updates Professional Video Lineup

Comments Filter:

  • Not OS X Only (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 06, 2003 @11:32PM (#5676806)
    Shake is NOT OS X only. There are still other versions for linux/irix... there ARE some Mac OS X only features however (Rendezvous enabled Distributed computing). also - the Mac OS X version is $5000 cheaper.

  • Shake 3 NOT OSX-only (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doktor Memory ( 237313 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @11:32PM (#5676812) Journal
    Per Apple's own page [apple.com], Shake is available for the following platforms:

    • MacOS X
    • Linux
    • Irix


    Only Windows 2000/XP support has been dropped.

  • Hah! (Score:5, Funny)

    by dirkdidit ( 550955 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @11:34PM (#5676826) Homepage
    Who needs fancy smancy tools to do video editing on the Mac? Real men use iMovie! Right? Right? That's what the salesman told me!!! He wouldn't lie would he?!?!

    • Re:Hah! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by deadsaijinx* ( 637410 ) <animemeken@hotmail.com> on Sunday April 06, 2003 @11:48PM (#5676879) Homepage
      I know you're just joking, but you probably shouldn't knock to hard on iMovie. For a free video editor (how free is it when you pay $3000 for the machine? SHUT UP U!) it is suprisingly powerful. It handles a fair number of video effects, as well as a fairly powerful yet mind-numbingly easy to use Title Generator. It also sports a variety of transitions. But most importantly it is easy to use and can produce some really nice results without forking over thousands for software. Of course, you could knock on it for being some lame peice of shit with only one video track and two audio tracks, as well as its inability to slow down audio without horrible "shutter-voice," but let's just look at the competition. The most recent release of Windows movie maker finally added Transitions to its tool-box. Nuf sed.

      Of course, real men edit movies using text editors under the command console!

  • It's sad (Score:3, Informative)

    by thesadjester ( 87558 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @11:35PM (#5676833)
    They are totally cutting out Logic users from the ability to use a PC in the near future. I have no idea how long they plan to keep logic for PC updated, but I absolutely love logic. Midi wise, it's far ahead of pro tools and it can utilize the VST plugins while pro tools forces you upon expensive RTAS or TDM (depending on whether you use LE or a MIX system). I'm happy with my digi 001 running with logic on a pc. Runs great...I am sad however. Oh well.

    Anyone know the exact cutoff date?

    Also, we need to get open support for the digidesign stuff, as well as the presonus firestation and the motu stuff.

    • Re:It's sad (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gig ( 78408 )
      Doing music on Windows ... it's like asking to be hit in the mouth repeatedly by Bill Gates while you're singing. In my studio, we have about one crash per year that interrupts a take, and that's just an application crash. We haven't had a system crash in two years. You can't get that stability day-in day-out from MS Windows while moving dozens of audio, MIDI, and video tracks around. You are better off with a Fostex 4-track. Truly.

      I have a friend who bought a PC last year and a copy of Logic Audio and it

  • Final Cut Pro (Score:4, Interesting)

    by deadsaijinx* ( 637410 ) <animemeken@hotmail.com> on Sunday April 06, 2003 @11:37PM (#5676844) Homepage
    is by far my FAVORITE video editing software. in fact, that is the ONLY reason I use a mac (please don't hate me for that). However, I really don't think that these improvements warrant an upgrade (hey, it's an expensive product). In fact, I can hardly tell the difference between FCP2 and FCP3. Maybe I'm just ignorant, or retarded, but I can't actually tell the difference when using the product. Maybe that's a good thing though, Mac is all about streamlining their software for perfect integration. Anywayz ... kinda lost my train of thought ... oh, yeah. Anywayz, Their DVD software is only mediocre, nothing really superb about it. Nothing really wrong with it either. Ok, then we have shake. Looks a lot like combustion from Discreet (3dstudio max people) but i haven't used shake before (I'm on a budget, okay) so I really can't say too mush about it. But lets look at the bright side, it runs in OSX (first time i read that i thought it sed osex) and the slashdot crowd should probably appreciate that. Personally, I'm happy chugging along with OS9 and the dual 1ghz mac I use FCP on. Moral of the story, apple does ONE thing very well, and that thing is Video editing.... i wish FCP was released for winders (or at least linux. I mean, if it can run on OSX, then its only a jump, hop, and skip away from Linux, Right?)

    • Re:Final Cut Pro (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mikedaisey ( 413058 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @12:01AM (#5676927) Homepage

      Thatr may be true of FCP2 and FCP3, but did you even read the list of what's included with FCP4?

      I didn't think so, Mr. Lost-My-Train-Of-Thought-While-Rambling-Barely-Coh erently.

      • actually, I did. New trim type (which I won't use) new title generator (i like the ones i use, so I really woudn't notice the new one), customizable keyboard (but after years of using FCP, i'm not about to change my keyboard layout), and some new audio mixers (i don't do the audio in FCP, i use other software). Am I incoherent and rambling, maybe. But remember, your mind is an incoherent and chaotic universe wrapped in a white shell. It reminds me of a story where in a litt ... sorry, lost my train of thoug
    • What? How can you say that there are not enough features in this upgrade?

      From the pr:
      Packed with more than 300 new features, Final Cut Pro 4 introduces RT Extreme, for real-time compositing and effects, powerful new interface customization tools, new high-quality 8- and 10-bit uncompressed formats and for the first time in an editing system costing less than $100,000, full 32-bit floating point per channel video processing. Final Cut Pro 4 also includes three completely new integrated applications--Live
      • I guess I don't need FCP, then, since none of the new stuff affects me either.

        OTOH, it does look like DVD Studio Pro 2 is a major advance; building DVDs in 1.5 is a tedious job, especially in menu editing, and it looks like that's where the improvements are. I just hope that I can use FCP 3 to produce input to DVDSP 2; if not, that will drive up the upgrade price.
    • I mean, if it can run on OSX, then its only a jump, hop, and skip away from Linux, Right?

      Wrong. FCP is presumably a Carbon application, and the Carbon API is not available on any other platform - only Mac OS X and I believe Mac OS 8.5 and later (with CarbonLib). Porting the application to another API would require mostly rewriting it. That might be even harder than porting Carbon to other platforms, which Apple definitely isn't going to do.

      Trivia: when Apple ported QuickTime to Windows, they decided
      • > Old versions of QT for Windows contain a partial implementation of the Macintosh Toolbox

        Replace 'old' with 'new' and you're right. Everything from QT3 onwards on Windows is basically built on top of QTML, the QuickTime Meta Layer, which is a close-to-complete version of the Classic Mac Toolbox.

        It was actually complete enough that you could get code to run by changing less than 5%. (For example, (Mac call) InvalRect doesn't work, so you had to translate your coordinates into Windows coordinates and
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Hmm, whats this? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Curt ( 37359 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @11:44PM (#5676864)
    "Screw you, Adobe (After Effects)"
    -Apple

    http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/texteffects.htm l

  • three-button mouse (Score:5, Funny)

    by mz001b ( 122709 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @11:53PM (#5676899)
    It is amusing to see that a 3-button mouse is listed under the requirements for the Mac version of shake.

  • logic (Score:2, Insightful)

    by GoatPigSheep ( 525460 )
    Yeah it should also be noted that there is no longer a version of logic available for PC thanks to Apple buying out the company.

    Basically that means that lots of home studio people who can't afford proprietary MAC hardware are out of luck if they want to get any updates for logic audio.

    It seems apple's strategy might be to FORCE us to switch... Sounds almost like something MS would do.

    • Re:logic (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cheshiremackat ( 618044 )
      Hmmm... I'm still waiting for Microsoft to port their games portfolio to mac.... Now ALOT of home games users are FORCED to buy expensive Wintel hardware to play games... seems like something Apple would do in their strong suite...

      C'mon, Apple bought the company, if they force you to use a mac, so be it... I have to use Windows for stuff that microsoft doesn't port (cough cough... Access)...

      As long as Apple adds value and develops the software, then users are better off upgrading anyway... just because a
    • Basically that means that lots of home studio people who can't afford proprietary MAC hardware are out of luck if they want to get any updates for logic audio.

      I'm thinking if you can't afford a Mac, you can't afford this software anyway. Have you seen the pricing?

    • Re:logic (Score:2, Informative)

      by doce ( 31638 )
      Basically that means that lots of home studio people who can't afford proprietary MAC hardware are out of luck if they want to get any updates for logic audio.

      oh please. people who are running audio studios, whether at home or at work, are spending serious jack on their systems. audio hardware is inherently expensive. you don't run a studio on a $500 Dell. MOTU cards, high-bandwidth HD arrays, the actual audio hardware... these things are not exactly cheap.
    • It seems apple's strategy might be to FORCE us to switch... Sounds almost like something MS would do.

      Ah, but switch to a Mac, or switch to another audio program?

      I'd go for the latter. Screwing over a large part of a customer base you just aquired does not bode well for the future, and VST really isn't that bad.

      • Re:logic (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Graymalkin ( 13732 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @07:51AM (#5678154)
        Compared to their Mac user base Emagic's PC user base is extraordinarily small. It is unfortunate for them to have to either switch platforms or audio programs but like the Mac community has known for years, you can't expect the low volume (thus low revenue) product to remain in production indefinitely. A large percentage of those PC users will likely switch to Macs which is what Apple would like while others will stick with what they have and then switch applications. In the end you'll likely see only about 15-20% of Logic's users switch to other applications.

      • Re:logic (Score:2, Insightful)

        by DJ FirBee ( 611681 )
        >and VST really isn't that bad.

        VST works fine for crap reverbs and fx, but when you try to do some tight percussive parts on a virtual synth and then multiply that by the number of parts in your track then VST sucks. Latency sucks, VST Sucks.

        If the hoary promise of cramming all of those old 80's synths and drum machines and virtual samplers into a laptop is ever going to be true then VST should go.

        As expensive, proprietary as Macs you can do a bunch of mulimedia shit on them without replacing drivers
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Qwitcherbitchin' about proprietary hardware. Shouldn't have bought proprietary *software* then, huh?

  • $$$? Nevair! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Linux-based-robots ( 660980 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @12:02AM (#5676930) Journal
    I noticed it says "from the break-out-your-wallet dept."

    Well, not for me! My friends Blackbeard, Long John, and Jean Lafite will see to that!

    Fifteen men on a p2p node,
    Yo ho ho, an illegal download!

  • Rendezvous Clustering (Score:5, Informative)

    by dhovis ( 303725 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @12:28AM (#5677006)

    The really cool feature Apple introduced with Shake 3 is automatic clustering with Rendezvous. From Apple's Shake page [apple.com]:

    Because with the inclusion of unlimited network render licenses and render management software on Mac OS X, visual effects artists can now distribute rendering tasks across multiple PowerPC G4-based Macintosh computers.

    ...and from a press release...

    New Shake Qmaster network render management software included with Shake for Mac OS X uses Apple's Rendezvous(TM) networking technology to automatically identify available render nodes and clusters on a network while load balancing optimizes usage across each machine in the workflow. If one Xserve or Power Mac G4 goes offline, built-in fault tolerance allows Shake Qmaster to re-route tasks to other render nodes in the cluster, so the project gets done on time. As Shake Qmaster is based on an open architecture, it can also provide distributed rendering support for many leading third-party applications, such as Alias/Wavefront's Maya.

    Point and click clustering, courtesy of Apple. Looks like a good way to sell Apple's new XServe Cluster Node [slashdot.org] config.

    • Re:Rendezvous Clustering (Score:5, Funny)

      by Hawthorne01 ( 575586 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @12:53AM (#5677090)
      Imagine a .... Nah, nevermind. It takes longer to post that than to make one now. ;-)

    • Re:Rendezvous Clustering (Score:5, Informative)

      by mistermund ( 605799 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @01:03AM (#5677124)
      Point and click clustering, courtesy of Apple.

      Very worthy to point this out. I'm working on a new lab for a visual effects pipeline. In the arsenal are a handful of dual athlon linux workstations, a terabyte fileserver, and licenses for Maya Unlimited, Shake, and Renderman. We have a bucketload of licenses for the last two, and plans to use them on a 128-node athlon cluster (also running Linux) to experiment with real-time Renderman work, etc.

      We are at the stage where the workstations are up and running and we are getting ready to tackle clustering. /me thinks Rendezvous enabled Renderman would come in handy! It seems like the best solution I've been able to find for using these types of apps across a cluster is OpenMosix [sourceforge.net]. Anyone have experience with it?

      Props to Apple for adding these features for their platform - Just like Final Cut Pro brought Avid-level power to the masses, Shake might be bringing this type of previously studio-tech level compositing to smaller effects houses as well.
    • The really cool feature Apple introduced with Shake 3 is automatic clustering with Rendezvous.

      But does it actually work though? A lot of Apple (particularly network I've noticed) stuff looks great in black and white but simply screws up all the time in practice. ARD and Mac Manager for example.

  • Performer 4 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ericdano ( 113424 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @12:37AM (#5677030) Homepage
    It will be interesting to see how well Digital Performer 4 works with Final Cut Pro 4. If those two could be work together well, things would be grand!

  • SGI CXFS (SAN XFS) coming soon for OS X (Score:5, Informative)

    by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @12:55AM (#5677096) Homepage
    While browsing around, I ran across this press release:

    http://www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/2003/ap ril/prod_san.html [sgi.com]

  • An Honest Comparison (Score:5, Informative)

    by coolmacdude ( 640605 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @01:19AM (#5677172) Homepage Journal
    Anyone naive enough to flame Apple because they think their hardware is too expensive should stop for a minute and take an honest look at what they actually offer. I decided to perform a quick comparison between a Powerbook and a Dell laptop to see which was the better buy. Note: this is a comparison between the 17" Powerbook and the best Dell laptop I saw configured up to the Powerbooks specs the best I could.

    Processor:
    Apple - 1 Ghz G4
    Dell - 2 Ghz P4
    Winner = debatable but I'll give it to Dell

    RAM: Apple and Dell both 512 MB, tie

    Hard Drive: 60 GB for both, tie

    CD/DVD Drive:
    Apple - CD-R/DVD-R
    Dell - CD-R/DVD
    Winner: Apple

    Wired Networking:
    Apple - 10/100/1000
    Dell - 10/100
    Winner: Apple

    Wireless Networking:
    Apple - builtin card and antennas
    Dell - PC card can be added for extra
    Winner: Apple

    Graphics Card:
    Apple - 64 MB Nvidia GeForce 4 440 Go
    Dell - 64 MB Nvidia Geforce 4 4200
    About the same performance = tie

    Screen:
    Apple - 17 in. widescreen
    Dell - 15.4 in widescreen
    Winner: Apple

    Battery: Apple claims 4 hours, Dell claims 3
    Winner: Performance is probably close but Apple might have a marginal lead

    Warranty: both one year = tie

    Software:
    Apple - Mac OS X, iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, Image Capture, iCal, iChat, Mail, IE 5,
    Dell - Windows XP Pro, Dell Jukebox Premium, Dell Picture Studio, Dell Movie Studio Essentials, Outlook Express, IE 6
    Winner: most definitely Apple

    Thickness and weight:
    Apple - 1 in. 6.8 lbs.
    Dell: 1.52 in. 6.9 lbs
    Winner: Apple

    Looks: Apple again, obviously

    Price:
    Apple - $3299
    Dell - $2640
    Winner: Dell

    In summary, while the PC is a little bit cheaper and the processor a little faster, in virtually every other area the Mac comes out ahead. With a Mac, you get what you pay for. Sure the processor may be a little bit slower, but it isn't a dramatic difference and the overall value of the product is just as good as a PC.
    • I'm a big fan of Apple. However lets be fair here. When people complain about Apple's prices they generally are refering to desktop units. There are essentially two problems:

      1) In the PC world you can buy cheapo stuff and get a lot of power very inexpensively providing you are willing to be annoyed some

      2) Apple CPUs suck for desktop use.

      Hopefully the 970s will kill issue (2). I don't think Apple has any intention of doing much about issue (1).
      • 1) In the PC world you can buy cheapo stuff and get a lot of power very inexpensively providing you are willing to be annoyed some

        Define "some."

        2) Apple CPUs suck for desktop use.

        Dude, seriously... put down the bong.

        • An eMachine that looks good on paper can be had for $550 or so. By looks good on paper I mean that will have impressive sounding specs like 40GB HDD, 1.8 Ghz processor and so forth. It will also feature a wimpy power supply. The build quality of the motherboard and included periphreals will be low as possible. The motherboard will probably use some weird chipset to boot. Beyond questionable hardware there will be software hassles. The default desktop will assault you with banner ads and it will have
      • "When people complain about Apple's prices they generally are refering to desktop units." I agree with that, but most of the complaints in this thread were relating to laptops so that's what I decided to focus on.
    • Don't forget the fact that the P4 runs at or about 1/2 speed when not plugged into a wall.
    • A 440 and a 4200 are completely different chips. However, accelerator or not, only OSX uses it properly (games excluded).

      Dave
      • Actually NVidia includes special video drivers to accelerate Windows graphics functions (GDI+, I believe)... at least on the Toshiba laptop I got (atellite 2435).

        Sadly, the Toshiba (P4 2.4ghz) smokes... smoke isn't even the word... kills my G4(s) in terms of performance. Speed-wise there is no comparison whatsoever.

    • Wired Networking:

      Apple - 10/100/1000
      Dell - 10/100
      Winner: Apple

      You do realise that practically nowhere offers gigabit ethernet plugin at the wall, not even at work? It's mostly for wiring up server farms etc. I seriously doubt your computer can consistantly give a gigabit of throughput anyway - this is like when they bumped the ram up to DDR, who cares that the CPU couldn't actually use it, it made the specs look better!

      In summary, while the PC is a little bit cheaper and the processor a little faste

      • You do realise that practically nowhere offers gigabit ethernet plugin at the wall, not even at work? It's mostly for wiring up server farms etc. I seriously doubt your computer can consistantly give a gigabit of throughput anyway...

        Even if you could only do 2x the throughput of standard 100Mbit, it's still 2x faster. For those of us that have enough machines with gigabit ethernet to warrant having a 10/100/1000 switch, well... that extra speed is pretty fucking sweet.

        Choice of hardware: Dell: everythin

      • Choice of hardware:
        Dell: everything
        Apple: little

        Err, what are you saying here? That I can't go out and buy a hard drive and hook it up to my Mac? I can - an IDE one that would also (last time I looked) work with a PC too.

        Anything with a USB connector - works on both Mac and PC

        Anything with a firewire (1394/iLink) connector - works with Mac out of the box, might need firewire card on a PC, but will work.

        Anything that conforms to memory standards (DDR, PC133 etc, depending on motherboard) - will work on

    • Bzzzzzt! Do you research. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm sorry but you are just wrong. You obviously haven't done your research. You are off on so many counts that you should be embarrased.

      "Processor:
      Apple - 1 Ghz G4
      Dell - 2 Ghz P4
      Winner = debatable but I'll give it to Dell"

      Bzzzzt! You're joking right? Debatable? No, it is not in any way debatable. A 2Ghz P4 smokes a 1Ghz G4. You are two years behind the times if you still buy into the myth propagated by Apple that Mhz don't matter.

      "Wired Networking:
      Apple - 10/100/1000
      Dell - 10/100
      Winner: Apple"

      If you are
      • A 2ghz P4 might smoke a 1ghz G4, but at least the G4 still runs at full speed while on battery power. There's none of that "speedstep" nonsense on Macs...

      • Re:Bzzzzzt! Do you research. (Score:4, Informative)

        by Halo1 ( 136547 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @07:11AM (#5677971)
        Screen: Apple - 17 in. widescreen Dell - 15.4 in widescreen Winner: Apple" Bzzzzt! We aren't comparing desktops here - we are comparing latops. Either Apple loses here or Apple loses in dimensions/weight.
        Actually, the PBG4 weighs slightly less with its 17" screen than the Dell with its 15.4" screen. Of course, it is still wider (not higher though, it's a widescreen model with the same height as a 15" screen). If you then have to add an extra battery to the Dell to be able to surpass the Powerbook's battery life, I don't want to be the one that has to lug that stuff around...

        FWIW, you can also get a 3 year warranty (+ 3 years telephone support) on the Powerbook. That doesn't cost a small amount however, though I don't know how the cost compares to that from Dell.

      • "Bzzzzt! You're joking right? Debatable? No, it is not in any way debatable. A 2Ghz P4 smokes a 1Ghz G4. You are two years behind the times if you still buy into the myth propagated by Apple that Mhz don't matter." It most certainly is debateable. I agree that in most cases that the P4 is faster. However, with apps optimized for Altivec the performance is about the same if not better with the G4. And as others have said, when on battery power the P4 is unable to run at full speed.

    • MX vs. 4200 (Score:3, Informative)

      by X_Caffeine ( 451624 )
      A couple other people have already pointed out, but I really have to restate: the GF4 440 Go is nowhere near the same class a chip as the GF4 4200. The "440 Go" is a low-power version of the GF4MX, which in turn is just a souped-up GF2. The GF4 4200 is MASSIVELY better.

      The GF4MX series (including the Go) play today's 3D software fine, but are mostly useless for tomorrow's stuff (like Doom3). The GF4 series is almost absurdly overpowered for today's software, and is ready for tomorrow's. (and this doesn't e

    • Re:An Honest Comparison (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tshak ( 173364 )
      Because Laptops are more proprietary in nature, Apple can compete a little better on price as opposed to desktop "boxes". The ~$600 price difference is not bad considering the quality of software, screen size, and clean hardware design of the Powerbook. I would like to correct you with your "debateable" processor analysis. This is a problem with many Mac only users - they believe the mhz myth inversly ("G4's are always faster no matter how fast the AMD/Intel counterpart). I would also like to point out
      • While I generally agree with you that the P4 would be faster, (I was not meaning to suggest it wouldn't be, just that some would argue that) I disagree with your assessment of SSE2. SSE2 in no way comes close to matching the performance gains of AltiVec. SSE2 is simply a set of optimizations that reduce the number of computations necessary to do something. AltiVec is a parallel processing technology that operates on multiple streams of data simultaneously. In operations that take advantage of AltiVec, the G

  • That was fast!! (Score:2, Funny)

    by olrs ( 534447 )
    I mean, the story just before this one was about apple releasing new versions of Final Cut, Shake and DVD Studio. Now another release?! Their turn around is like 30 min!! Amazing!!

  • Shake 3 GUI (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Erik K. Veland ( 574016 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @03:42AM (#5677510) Homepage
    I'm surprised they didn't change the user interface of Shake to better match Final Cut Pro. Just lightening the grey and changing the tabs to match FCP4s would do a world of difference.

    Yes, this is probably not a priority in a production tool like this, but Shake looks really out of place on a Mac OS X system.

  • New Apps.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Brat Food ( 9397 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @05:38AM (#5677740) Homepage
    Just a note so people know where these apps fit in to workflows: (feel free to correct any innacuracies)

    FINAL CUT PRO 4

    Non Linear Editor. Now works with DV, DV-Pro(more bandwidth, better resolution/quality), film, and aparently anything in between. Other things to note are a new Title generator, audio mixer, and lots of tools (color correction, various video analizers). If you dont work in video production, the reasons for choosing an Avid over FCP might not seem readily apparent, especially considering the potential cost difference, but it mostly has to do with what you can do in real time(rendering effects and dissolves in software can get tedius with hi rez footage)

    SHAKE 3

    Compositing software. NOT a direct competitor to combustion or after effects. They all have their place in the workflow, and it would do a potential buyer well to know which tool will fulfill the requirements of their project. It is not for special effects so much (by itself, though you would composite them in on it), and dos not have the 3d support of combustion. It does however work very well for film resolutions, and has a very powerfull workflow.

    DVD STUDIO 2

    DVD Studio offered the most accessable way to profession DVD authoring I had found (compared to the products for windows, which had potentially more power, but were messy at best to work with). Looks as though ver.2 will up the flexibility while improving the workflow. Also, big tools that were missing from ver.1 are better compressors with more granular control, timline for integrating various video, audio, and subtitles, and better integration with final cut pro.

    All in all, Apple is offering a very compelling set of tools for a wide subset of motion media production. Ugg dont want to sound like an ad, but do yourself a favor and look in to an apple solution if your going to buy tools to work in video.

  • Tie? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by king-manic ( 409855 )
    RAM: Apple and Dell both 512 MB, tie

    You didn't mention what type of memory it is. If the Dell had DDR and the Apple had SD 133 I'm pretty sure they advantage goes to dell.

    Software:
    Apple - Mac OS X, iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, Image Capture, iCal, iChat, Mail, IE 5,
    Dell - Windows XP Pro, Dell Jukebox Premium, Dell Picture Studio, Dell Movie Studio Essentials, Outlook Express, IE 6
    Winner: most definitely Apple

    For most desktop users only the IE and iTunes/Jukebox would be used very much. IE 5 is nothin

    • RAM: Apple and Dell both 512 MB, tie You didn't mention what type of memory it is. If the Dell had DDR and the Apple had SD 133 I'm pretty sure they advantage goes to dell.

      The Apple memory is DDR.

      Software: Apple - Mac OS X, iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, Image Capture, iCal, iChat, Mail, IE 5, Dell - Windows XP Pro, Dell Jukebox Premium, Dell Picture Studio, Dell Movie Studio Essentials, Outlook Express, IE 6 Winner: most definitely Apple For most desktop users only the IE and iTunes/Jukebox would be u

  • So when's Bill gonna port this to Windows?

Slashdot Top Deals

In the future, you're going to get computers as prizes in breakfast cereals. You'll throw them out because your house will be littered with them.

Close