PDA

View Full Version : Motion



hawker
19th April 2004, 07:19 AM
Welcome Motion to the digital video fray:

http://www.apple.com.au/motion/

I knew I had a reason for using mac's to do digital video stuff ;)

InfiniteAnthony
19th April 2004, 07:51 AM
Very nice! Man i wish they had final cut pro and motion 5 years ago! Would have made my life a lot easier!

hawker
19th April 2004, 11:12 AM
I wish the Aussie TV industry would wake up and smell the coffee. It is taking so long for them to cosider FCP as a TV Standard. Mind you the yanks are taking their time, the only show that is edited on FCP at the moment is "Scrubs"!

stickman67
19th April 2004, 12:16 PM
If you build it, they will come ...

:lol:

faction
19th April 2004, 12:34 PM
What was wrong with FCP 1.2 and after effects 4-5 years ago? That did the job well I thought.

I am looking forward to using all the new features in the pro apps, but I think that a lot of it is hyped up technology that has been available for a while on other systems.

I love that fact that it is all available on macs now with cross program linking etc. that rocks

The HD firewire comprsion is very impressive. Now we just need to wait for the home market to widley accept HD TVs and HD DVD/RW of some kind. Oh and a nice X-box 2 with a G5 chip and kick ass HD graphics.

mmmmmmm

sillydog701
19th April 2004, 02:03 PM
I don't think everybody is able to get it, according the specification (from Apple's website)

Recommended system
Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5

4GB of RAM or more

Mac OS X v10.3.3 or later

ATI Radeon 9800 Pro graphics card or better


Minimum System Requirements
Macintosh computer with 867MHz or faster PowerPC G4 or G5 processor

512MB of RAM (2GB or more recommended)
...

One of the following graphics cards:
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
ATI Mobility Radeon 9600
ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
Although most AV guys would have relatively new computers, but not everyone (or company) can afford powerful Macs every second year.

hawker
19th April 2004, 05:18 PM
Yeah I just read that.. NOOOOO :(

icant
23rd April 2004, 02:33 AM
Doesn't anyone think the name "Motion" is a little unfortunate. For those "in the know" i.e. Apple fans, yeah, we know that Apple's program animates text, inserts it in movies and so on.

But I can't help but think it'll be the butt of some jokes. e.g. "Adobe's new release passes Motion".

Sounds like poo.

pipsqeek
23rd April 2004, 10:02 AM
Those minimum requirements are crap. - not meaning they are wrong.

I am sure that this is quite a powerful tool to use, but in all seriousness....you have to have the latest and greatest from Apple before even considering using it.

If you think about it, with a ratio of how many people now own G5's, and not just any G5, the DP2GHz compared to people that have lower model G5's and high spec'd G4's, You'd think Apple is missing out on alot of customers that would normally use this software, but dont exactly have the funds right now to go out and get the DP2GHz.

Sure, the app is great, is powerful and by being so, requires something decent to run it. But what did people do before the G5? use pencils? I really think that is totally opposite to the release of OS X 10.3 as being an OS that made your existing hardware feel faster. The fact that is ran on machines like a G3 iMac or something and now they bring out a program that cannot run on anything less then the Big Smoke G5.

This is not saying that it should be able to run fine on my iBook. But I think that the specs could have been relaxed alittle atleast to cover all G5's and maybe the last of the DP G4's.

Steve

the_argon
23rd April 2004, 11:39 AM
Everyone, what you have to realise is that this app's target audience isn't us 'Power Users' it's for the industry. "Pro Digital Production."

Apple are pushing the envelope in the film industry because if they don't they wont gain/keep market share that is so vital. To do that they need to create killer hardware AND killer software that takes advantage of the killer hardware. Sure, that may mean the upgrade cycle might be shortened (maybe not, I don't know.) And it means that entry level machines wont be able to run the pro software.

Do you honestly think that people who have any iMac,Book, whatever, Really need this app? The oldest mac that meets the system requirements is from mid 2001 - That's 3 years.

It's like QuarkXPress... they designed (and priced) their product for the industry because who else is going to use it?

faction
23rd April 2004, 12:42 PM
There is no way that any hardware other than the G5 2ghz would be able to do the real time effects.

I think apple has done a good thing. They have priced the software very cheap, and are obviously hopng to drive up sales of high end computers.

mhollis
24th April 2004, 12:02 AM
Apple's Final Cut Pro is not a standard within the television industry because the Avid is. Many more editors know the Avid and it's not that much of a struggle to go from FCP to the Avid. As for market share, Final Cut is growing in the "wedding video" industry and the hobbyist industry. It's a much cheaper product and you can pretty much build your own system. Avid wants to control hardware as well as software -- but that is the model that Apple uses in selling the Macintosh platform at a premium above that of the pee cee.

Motion's requirements aren't a big deal. If you are renting out your video editing room for $300 an hour, you can pretty much pay off a dual-processor G5 within six months. From the professional's standpoint, you buy a really fast computer because you are servicing a client who you want to get back into your shop.

Besides, Micro$oft has always pushed hardware with their software. Their next operating system will, most probably, not run well on existing pee cees (but then you get into code bloat with their software...).

My company looked at Final Cut Pro and immediately dismissed it. I urged Apple to bring in a really good editor and really show off what the machine could do. I think they may have not thought about how to impress our company as much as they should have. To have had an Apple editing system doing a series of daily news programs at a major network would have really woken up the industry to the fact that Apple's platform and product are really excellent. I don't think Apple really got that.

Our managers were hot for an editing box made by the Grass Valley company (which has since been purchased by Thompson Broadcast, out of France) called the Vibrint. I told our managers that this was a very, very big blunder. In my thinking, there is a whole hourde of editors out there. Lots of young ones know Final Cut Pro because that is what colleges and universities use. And lots of editors know the Avid because that has been the standard for nonlinear computer-based editing for ten years. To go with the Grass Valley product would require that this major broadcast network have to train each individual whenever they needed to add someone. I told them that the hardware/software costs of the Avid were mitigated by the fact that everyone who edits knows it. And if they wanted the cheap solution, they would buy Apple.

There is a strong anti-Apple sentiment in the company, partly due to a partnership we have with Microsoft in the cable news network. So they went with the Vibrint, started training and, just as they were beginning to put the platform into some sort of universal use, deciced to dump it in favor of the Avid. The managers who supported the Vibrint found their "fall guy" and the company fired him.

I've been making television for 20 years. It always baffles me when managers don't listen to me.

What remains to be seen is whether or not Motion will push more high-end houses to Apple. I know of one who purchased Final Cut because Avid wanted too much for a HD editing system. Now that they have their toe in the door, Apple ought to push a bit with this kind of software.

Currawong
24th April 2004, 09:31 AM
A couple of comments on your post, which I think was excellent and informative:

Apple don't sell their hardware at a premium over PC's, unless you're trying to compare G5's to cheap assembled machines, which is hardly a valid comparison. They are, however, comparable with brand name Xeon and Opteron hardware, as well as Sun and SGI offerings.

The anti-Apple sentiment is pretty silly in your industry, especially considering that M$ doesn't actually sell anything that competes with Apple in the video editing industry, except for video codecs for online media. Managers don't listen because they are under different pressures to the rest of us. I have the same issue in my job at present.

mhollis
24th April 2004, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Currawong@Apr 24 2004, 09:31 AM
Apple don't sell their hardware at a premium over PC's.

The anti-Apple sentiment is pretty silly in your industry, especially considering that M$ doesn't actually sell anything that competes with Apple in the video editing industry, except for video codecs for online media. Managers don't listen because they are under different pressures to the rest of us. I have the same issue in my job at present.
I shall respectfully disagree with your first comment but my knowledge is limited to prices in the United States. Currently the top pee cee seller is Dell and their featured "workstations" (which is what I would call the Apple G5) lists for $2019 (USD) (http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/precn_650?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd). It does not include a SuperDrive. The Dual 1.8GHz G5 lists for $2499 (USD) (http://www.apple.com/) on the Apple website.

Now I can add (and even subtract). That's a $480 premium for the Mac but you get 80 extra Gigabytes of hard disk with the Mac and you get a Superdrive. I also think you would get more years of life out of a Macintosh so maybe they're even. But this is the top-of-the-line Dell. The top-of-the-line Mac is $3,000.

It's important to compare top-tier with top-tier. You don't get service and support worth anything with the heapy-cheapie clone sellers. And Dell is the top pee cee manufacturer in the US I think HP/Compaq are number 2.

Microsoft doesn't make software for making television. They make productivity software and operating systems for servers and desktops. I think they wouldn't be all that interested in making software for video production -- even to compete with iMovie. And at work, I don't use any codec made by either Apple or Microsoft. Our codecs were arrived at by the Matsushita company and they're called DV-25 (either that or they were invented by Avid and they call them DV-25 for those interested, they're only fair-quality 5:1 compression). The only thing we use that is Microsoft's for our editing workstations is the OS and, perhaps a few low-level file transfer stuff that ought to be part of a modern OS.

I think that our company would be a lot more secure if we didn't use Microsoft's software or e-mail, web browsing and our connection to the Internet. But then, I'm not one of our managers. I actually work for a living.

dworld
27th April 2004, 04:29 PM
Don't know if this is a Major Television News Company in the US but it's interesting reading.

KTVX and Final Cut Pro (http://www.apple.com/pro/video/ktvx/)

icant
27th April 2004, 07:23 PM
Just my speculation.

I think that Apple's new software is driving the cost of doing working, so much so that new players previously unable to afford the hardware/software combination will now be able to produce similar output.

They did the same thing with desktop publishing. Windows did the same with the GUI revolution. And then Apple did the same thing with video editing. Looks like Apple is trying to repeat it's success with higher end broadcast quality video editing, and also music making.

And I certainly think that Apple is justified in creating some of this new software for G5s only. If running this type of software was possible on the later-generation G4s (as Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro etc were), then this software would have been released prior to the G5s being released. As faster computers are released, we will be able to produce similar output even faster, and also produce even more impressive output.

Just my opinion.