matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
DakotaGuy
Oct 9, 10:21 AM
The funny thing is if I had never read a message board I would have never went and looked at a PC, because I just have always bought Macs, after 4 or 5 years, just went to the dealer and picked up a new one, I never used a PC except at school, which schools stuff is always years out of date anyway, so I just figured that this is what you had to pay for a good, fast, computer that will last 4 or 5 years, I have always been comfortable and pleased with my Macs, but this next when the DV is ready to be replaced, I am going to be smarter then I used to be and not just walk into the Apple dealer and pick up a new one, I am going to shop around and see if I like these all new PC's with XP. If I can save money and end up with a much faster, easier to use computer, then I am dumb to just go Apple like I always have. I don't know a lot about this freaking processor or that floating point, gigaflop, or whatever crap, I just want to buy something that works well and is a good value and I am sorry to say, but I have been blind to PC's and I see they have came so much farther then Macs have and also Microsoft is making some excellent software now. I am sad...because I used to love my Mackie and Booker, but now I get the point how crappy they really are compared to the PC's. ;o(
Pants
Oct 9, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by gopher
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary. The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely. If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs. If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations. Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp. Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
ahhhh...so to get performance from the damned thing, I have to write arcane altivec code yes? well, sorry, I and many like me, neither have the time nor the patience to hand wring performance like this. Jeez, the days of hand optimising code are thankfully long gone, except, it seems with a g4. And we have to of course assume that even this mythical 18 million flops is based on the assumption that we can get the altivec unit supplied with data? hmm... This is not acceptable - spec fp biased? well, yeah, because it doesnt justify your end argument - the fact that most other companies are 'happy' to stand by it is merely justification for its 'biased' nature yeah?
hmm.....
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary. The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely. If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs. If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations. Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp. Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
ahhhh...so to get performance from the damned thing, I have to write arcane altivec code yes? well, sorry, I and many like me, neither have the time nor the patience to hand wring performance like this. Jeez, the days of hand optimising code are thankfully long gone, except, it seems with a g4. And we have to of course assume that even this mythical 18 million flops is based on the assumption that we can get the altivec unit supplied with data? hmm... This is not acceptable - spec fp biased? well, yeah, because it doesnt justify your end argument - the fact that most other companies are 'happy' to stand by it is merely justification for its 'biased' nature yeah?
hmm.....
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 09:00 PM
Why is it that hard to understand? Because every OS has files that users should not and could not touch. OS/X is not an exception to this rule. Showing these files to users in file manager generally makes user life more difficult. What's the point of seeing them if you can not do anything about them? Also, it reduces the chance of doing something stupid with these files accidentally (like removing).
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
hondaboy945
Sep 20, 12:57 AM
I really hope that someone from Apple reads these forums, I am sure it gets back to Apple, anyway I hope they do it right. Or there will be alot of disappointed people and money lost.
tigress666
Apr 9, 11:43 AM
Wait? There's no need to wait. You are doing yourself a disservice. Do yourself a favor. Go to one of your friends houses, one with a PS3 or Xbox and at least a 37 inch TV. Play Assassin's Creed or Prince of Persia. Come back and tell us what's the difference.
Yeah, of course there is a difference on a console. I thought we were comparing hand helds. And I'm not claiming the iphone is the best experience for a lot of games (notice that I've pretty much said that PoP and Assassin's Creed would do better with buttons but for my purposes it's still fun on touchscreen).
I'm not claiming I'm some sort of hard core gamer.
But what I am claiming, is that there are *good* games on the iphone that are more than just "timewasters" (Well, honestly, any game is a "timewaster" if you think about it. Do you really think you do anything productive when you game? No. You do it for fun in your free time). But there are games that you can get into and play for more than five minutes (stuff that isn't the Angry Birds type game). Games that have me put down my computer and actually focus on them for long periods of time. I'm really happy to see that happen more on the iphone. I love that Square has started putting games on (if you can't tell, they're one of my favorite game makers ;). But Gameloft has started getting my love too).
That's what I'm saying.
Let me watch you play those on the subway. This is all about portable gaming.
Pretty much. It's kinda stupid to compare the iphone to a PS3 or Xbox. That's apples and oranges. No handheld is going to compare to something like that, if nothing else for having a large screen and a controller that really is designed to be a controller (and not a controller and a screen in one. No handheld can be as easy to use as a controller as a dedicated controller, which btw, I totally prefer the Playstation's/Playstation 2 controller. That was the most ergonomic controller I've experienced but I haven't had a console since the PS2. It's about as much difference in experience as a touch screen vs. buttons really. I always find handheld games are more awkward to control and have my hands cramp up. But the point of them is portability so you do make compromises).
True, some iPad/iPhone games are "casual time wasters" but there are also some FANTASTIC games. Dead Space iOS is fantastic and guess what, ITS WAS 10 DOLLARS. True, its not as good as the console versions, but those sold for 60 DOLLARS.
And this is exactly what I'm trying to say :).
bin laden funny cartoon. osama
bin laden funny cartoon osama
funny osama bin laden,
osama bin laden cartoon. usama
funny in laden cartoon. osama
Funny Osama in Laden Cartoon.
funny osama bin laden
Wasosama bin laden cartoons
Funny Osama Bin Laden Pictures
osama bin laden animation.
funny cartoon about osama
funny bin laden cartoon. obama
Funny Osama in Laden Cartoon
Yeah, of course there is a difference on a console. I thought we were comparing hand helds. And I'm not claiming the iphone is the best experience for a lot of games (notice that I've pretty much said that PoP and Assassin's Creed would do better with buttons but for my purposes it's still fun on touchscreen).
I'm not claiming I'm some sort of hard core gamer.
But what I am claiming, is that there are *good* games on the iphone that are more than just "timewasters" (Well, honestly, any game is a "timewaster" if you think about it. Do you really think you do anything productive when you game? No. You do it for fun in your free time). But there are games that you can get into and play for more than five minutes (stuff that isn't the Angry Birds type game). Games that have me put down my computer and actually focus on them for long periods of time. I'm really happy to see that happen more on the iphone. I love that Square has started putting games on (if you can't tell, they're one of my favorite game makers ;). But Gameloft has started getting my love too).
That's what I'm saying.
Let me watch you play those on the subway. This is all about portable gaming.
Pretty much. It's kinda stupid to compare the iphone to a PS3 or Xbox. That's apples and oranges. No handheld is going to compare to something like that, if nothing else for having a large screen and a controller that really is designed to be a controller (and not a controller and a screen in one. No handheld can be as easy to use as a controller as a dedicated controller, which btw, I totally prefer the Playstation's/Playstation 2 controller. That was the most ergonomic controller I've experienced but I haven't had a console since the PS2. It's about as much difference in experience as a touch screen vs. buttons really. I always find handheld games are more awkward to control and have my hands cramp up. But the point of them is portability so you do make compromises).
True, some iPad/iPhone games are "casual time wasters" but there are also some FANTASTIC games. Dead Space iOS is fantastic and guess what, ITS WAS 10 DOLLARS. True, its not as good as the console versions, but those sold for 60 DOLLARS.
And this is exactly what I'm trying to say :).
Th3Crow
May 3, 10:29 AM
You mean running stuff like iphoto?
PC versions of cross platform apps are typically faster, have more features than their mac counterparts. That's if there even is a version for mac. Its viable to not own a PC anymore because macs use PC hardware now and can run windows. PC users have no use for osx at all but many mac users still need to have windows
I would dispute your claims that PC versions are faster and more feature-laden than their Mac versions. And sure, there is going to be some software for which there is no Mac counterpart. But the same can be said for the reverse. It's not like the 90s - back then this was a valid argument. Today it's a much different story; the Mac marketshare has risen to a point where it is in the best interests of software developers to create a Mac version.
There are indeed PC versions for most everything I do on my Mac. My point was simply that it tends to be easier to do on the Mac, and much less frustrating. Having used both, I can tell you that (IMO) Macs make the work seem much less cumbersome. I enjoy creating promotional videos, for example on my Mac. Or fun videos of my kids (using iMovie - which makes it so fast and easy - and professional looking - that the kids can put on a skit at the beginning of a birthday party, and at the end of the party I can give each child a DVD of their skit to take home). Doing it on a PC is painful. Graphic design and web development is fantastic on the Mac - and just plain irritating on a PC.
We can debate this until we're blue in the face - this is just my opinion as a heavy user of myriad applications, and I will concede that I have not tried every possible text editor out there to see if something compares to BBEdit. But I don't need to. I love my Mac - always have - and I really hate the experience on a Windows PC. But if you are as happy on your PC as I am with my Mac, I'm not going to call you names or belittle your choice. To each their own. I just take issue with the whole idea that we Mac users NEED to run Windows. We don't. Ever.
PC versions of cross platform apps are typically faster, have more features than their mac counterparts. That's if there even is a version for mac. Its viable to not own a PC anymore because macs use PC hardware now and can run windows. PC users have no use for osx at all but many mac users still need to have windows
I would dispute your claims that PC versions are faster and more feature-laden than their Mac versions. And sure, there is going to be some software for which there is no Mac counterpart. But the same can be said for the reverse. It's not like the 90s - back then this was a valid argument. Today it's a much different story; the Mac marketshare has risen to a point where it is in the best interests of software developers to create a Mac version.
There are indeed PC versions for most everything I do on my Mac. My point was simply that it tends to be easier to do on the Mac, and much less frustrating. Having used both, I can tell you that (IMO) Macs make the work seem much less cumbersome. I enjoy creating promotional videos, for example on my Mac. Or fun videos of my kids (using iMovie - which makes it so fast and easy - and professional looking - that the kids can put on a skit at the beginning of a birthday party, and at the end of the party I can give each child a DVD of their skit to take home). Doing it on a PC is painful. Graphic design and web development is fantastic on the Mac - and just plain irritating on a PC.
We can debate this until we're blue in the face - this is just my opinion as a heavy user of myriad applications, and I will concede that I have not tried every possible text editor out there to see if something compares to BBEdit. But I don't need to. I love my Mac - always have - and I really hate the experience on a Windows PC. But if you are as happy on your PC as I am with my Mac, I'm not going to call you names or belittle your choice. To each their own. I just take issue with the whole idea that we Mac users NEED to run Windows. We don't. Ever.
MacRumors
Apr 28, 07:18 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/28/apple-slips-to-fourth-in-worldwide-pc-sales-with-ipad-included/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/28/081408-canalys_1q2011_pc_share.jpg
Research firm Canalys today reported (http://www.canalys.com/pr/2011/r2011043.html) its data for worldwide first quarter PC shipments, pegging Apple in fourth place with 9.5% of the market when tablets such as the iPad are included in the calculation. Apple slipped one notch from its third-place finish (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/26/apple-ranks-third-in-global-pc-sales-with-ipad-included/) in the fourth quarter of 2010 as the company shipped fewer-than-expected iPads to begin the year as it cleared existing inventory of the first-generation models and sought to ramp up production on second-generation models.
With the iPad being added to the mix, Canalys calculates Apple's year-over-year growth for the quarter at nearly 188%, but down 31% from the previous quarter.Apple continued with its strategy to dominate the pad market, with the iPad or iPad 2 available in 59 markets by the end of Q1. A combination of strong Q4 sales and the announcement of the iPad 2's launch across major markets at the end of March contributed to Apple's iPad shipments being down 31% sequentially. The full impact of the iPad 2 launch will not register until subsequent quarters, as Apple gets the product into the hands of consumers. While pad sales continued to lift Apple's results, PC vendors with a focus on the consumer netbook and notebook market, such as Acer and Asus, did not fare so well.Canalys reports that a total of 6.4 million "pad" devices were shipped during the quarter, with Apple accounting for 74% of the total.
Article Link: Apple Slips to Fourth in Worldwide PC Sales With iPad Included (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/28/apple-slips-to-fourth-in-worldwide-pc-sales-with-ipad-included/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/28/081408-canalys_1q2011_pc_share.jpg
Research firm Canalys today reported (http://www.canalys.com/pr/2011/r2011043.html) its data for worldwide first quarter PC shipments, pegging Apple in fourth place with 9.5% of the market when tablets such as the iPad are included in the calculation. Apple slipped one notch from its third-place finish (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/26/apple-ranks-third-in-global-pc-sales-with-ipad-included/) in the fourth quarter of 2010 as the company shipped fewer-than-expected iPads to begin the year as it cleared existing inventory of the first-generation models and sought to ramp up production on second-generation models.
With the iPad being added to the mix, Canalys calculates Apple's year-over-year growth for the quarter at nearly 188%, but down 31% from the previous quarter.Apple continued with its strategy to dominate the pad market, with the iPad or iPad 2 available in 59 markets by the end of Q1. A combination of strong Q4 sales and the announcement of the iPad 2's launch across major markets at the end of March contributed to Apple's iPad shipments being down 31% sequentially. The full impact of the iPad 2 launch will not register until subsequent quarters, as Apple gets the product into the hands of consumers. While pad sales continued to lift Apple's results, PC vendors with a focus on the consumer netbook and notebook market, such as Acer and Asus, did not fare so well.Canalys reports that a total of 6.4 million "pad" devices were shipped during the quarter, with Apple accounting for 74% of the total.
Article Link: Apple Slips to Fourth in Worldwide PC Sales With iPad Included (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/28/apple-slips-to-fourth-in-worldwide-pc-sales-with-ipad-included/)
CoryTV
Apr 12, 11:30 PM
You're assuming that if you didn't see a demo of it, it doesn't exist. iMovie has titling built in. They didn't demo titling this evening. Therefore, you're presuming this app has less titling than iMovie!
That seems pretty silly.
I made no such assumption, as far as less titling than imovie. But If there's a June release date, there is not 1 single major feature that hasn't been fully implemented. They are in final Beta. If they had a really high end titler/graphics engine, they would have shown it. Just like they would have shown high end grading. I'm not saying they're not coming at some point down the road, but I will eat a $100 bill on video if they have the full functionality of something like Color built in to this when it ships.
Look maybe what this all comes down to is this: They had to start somewhere, and they wanted to start selling it as soon as possible, and hope people will use FCS 3 + FCPX together until FCSX (why not jump to 10?) is released in 2 years.
Maybe this does have media sharing between stations, and pro tape i/o (which is still used by broadcast) But they don't need broadcast. That's the point. At $299 for the software, all they care about is people buying Apple Computers. And you know what? People buy Apple Computers who use Avid. Because they know at the very least, they can use FCP/Avid/CS5.5 on one system. And I do. And I will. I was just hoping at some point, I wouldn't have to choose between 3 NLE's on a per-project basis, as I will most likely be doing for the foreseeable future.
I LOVE the shiny new features on this. Thank GOD for 64-bit multicore. But in a lot of ways, tomorrow, many people will point out that Avid has been doing resolution and framerate independent timelines with ZERO rendering for like 18 months now. And Adobe's new warp stabilizer and h.264/avchd/red support are still pretty freakin amazing.
And I saw all the features through a tiny webstream, so maybe when I see it in glorious HD h.264 I'll change my mind.
But there's no reason in the 4 years since FCP 6 they couldn't have done all this and more. (FCP 7 was a really minor update) That's my frustration. They've been sitting on the COLOR tech, and they didn't fully integrate it? So we're still going to have to deal with the horrible round tripping as a best case senario? Or they didn't take some of the ideas of motion and integrate them seamlessly into the timeline, so we still have to use a separate FX program? Trust me, you could do this, and it would still be a good UI.
But fine, I'll plunk the $299 down and finally feel like I'm making use of all 8 of my cores, and pray for a day where I don't have to switch back and forth between apps.
That seems pretty silly.
I made no such assumption, as far as less titling than imovie. But If there's a June release date, there is not 1 single major feature that hasn't been fully implemented. They are in final Beta. If they had a really high end titler/graphics engine, they would have shown it. Just like they would have shown high end grading. I'm not saying they're not coming at some point down the road, but I will eat a $100 bill on video if they have the full functionality of something like Color built in to this when it ships.
Look maybe what this all comes down to is this: They had to start somewhere, and they wanted to start selling it as soon as possible, and hope people will use FCS 3 + FCPX together until FCSX (why not jump to 10?) is released in 2 years.
Maybe this does have media sharing between stations, and pro tape i/o (which is still used by broadcast) But they don't need broadcast. That's the point. At $299 for the software, all they care about is people buying Apple Computers. And you know what? People buy Apple Computers who use Avid. Because they know at the very least, they can use FCP/Avid/CS5.5 on one system. And I do. And I will. I was just hoping at some point, I wouldn't have to choose between 3 NLE's on a per-project basis, as I will most likely be doing for the foreseeable future.
I LOVE the shiny new features on this. Thank GOD for 64-bit multicore. But in a lot of ways, tomorrow, many people will point out that Avid has been doing resolution and framerate independent timelines with ZERO rendering for like 18 months now. And Adobe's new warp stabilizer and h.264/avchd/red support are still pretty freakin amazing.
And I saw all the features through a tiny webstream, so maybe when I see it in glorious HD h.264 I'll change my mind.
But there's no reason in the 4 years since FCP 6 they couldn't have done all this and more. (FCP 7 was a really minor update) That's my frustration. They've been sitting on the COLOR tech, and they didn't fully integrate it? So we're still going to have to deal with the horrible round tripping as a best case senario? Or they didn't take some of the ideas of motion and integrate them seamlessly into the timeline, so we still have to use a separate FX program? Trust me, you could do this, and it would still be a good UI.
But fine, I'll plunk the $299 down and finally feel like I'm making use of all 8 of my cores, and pray for a day where I don't have to switch back and forth between apps.
chrono1081
Apr 28, 12:28 PM
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
You've obviously never used one to its full potential.
You've obviously never used one to its full potential.
gorgeousninja
Apr 9, 06:36 AM
Oh, and try to be more mature in your reply next time please. That was uncalled for and childish.
actually the post was funny and to the point, your coming across as arrogant and ill informed.
actually the post was funny and to the point, your coming across as arrogant and ill informed.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 01:07 AM
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
umm you have your facts wrong there.
On wind farms in the US (and safe to say the world) you can count on 30% of the rated power at any moment in time.
Now it goes up above that but you can always count on 30% of it.
umm you have your facts wrong there.
On wind farms in the US (and safe to say the world) you can count on 30% of the rated power at any moment in time.
Now it goes up above that but you can always count on 30% of it.
caspersoong
Apr 21, 03:48 AM
Everything I hear Android, I think of piracy. And customizing for hours or days.
levitynyc
Apr 8, 10:38 PM
Why doesnt Apple allow you to plug a controller in the 30 pin adaptor? Wouldnt that be the best of both worlds?
Al Coholic
Apr 28, 10:31 PM
I could use a good laugh. Please "deduce" this one.
One day it was Apple Computer Inc. The next it was just Apple Inc.
"Deduced" enough for ya?
One day it was Apple Computer Inc. The next it was just Apple Inc.
"Deduced" enough for ya?
tigres
Jun 7, 06:05 PM
52 dropped calls today. Full bars of course. AT&T says no problems.
FMP
FMP
InfoTime
Apr 28, 08:05 AM
iPads retail at $499+. HP, Acer and Dell sell lots of laptops for $399+. Based on the retail pricing of the devices, I'd say it makes sense to count iPads.
SimD
Apr 12, 10:39 PM
I'm a full time professional editor who has edited on Avid since 1997 and FCP since 2005.. Does that not count? Almost every 'pro film' editor I have ever met (and I'm talking people who make hollywood films) barely knows how to turn the machine on.
I feel that Apple is marketing to the newer generation coming into the industry. I can't speak for the States, but here in Canada, schools are slowly transitioning from Avid to FCP for this very reason. At my uni, first year is film. Shoot film, cut film, project film. Year 2, we enter digital. Having this basic understanding, we are aware of what each feature does, and why it exists.
Apple is making it easier for filmmakers to jump right in and edit. Which is why their software is scalable. From the simplest Macbook to the highest end Mac Pro.
But these pros you speak of... it doesn't matter.. Being an editor doesn't mean knowing software. It's all about the aesthetics of montage. So whether they can turn on their computer or not, it doesn't matter. That's why productions hire Assistant Editors...
I feel that Apple is marketing to the newer generation coming into the industry. I can't speak for the States, but here in Canada, schools are slowly transitioning from Avid to FCP for this very reason. At my uni, first year is film. Shoot film, cut film, project film. Year 2, we enter digital. Having this basic understanding, we are aware of what each feature does, and why it exists.
Apple is making it easier for filmmakers to jump right in and edit. Which is why their software is scalable. From the simplest Macbook to the highest end Mac Pro.
But these pros you speak of... it doesn't matter.. Being an editor doesn't mean knowing software. It's all about the aesthetics of montage. So whether they can turn on their computer or not, it doesn't matter. That's why productions hire Assistant Editors...
coder12
Mar 18, 11:59 AM
I smell a lawsuit against AT&T coming along!
Bibulous
Sep 20, 12:48 AM
I hope it will work with all Front Row files, not just iTunes content.
brianus
Sep 27, 08:44 AM
Yes, Intel will be shipping Clovertowns then - but when will Apple get around to putting them in systems? (November - well, that can wait for The Lord God Jobs' keynote in January, for sure.)
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...
Not to mention the fact that they waited a month and a half after Woodcrest was released to announce the Mac Pro and Intel XServes -- based not on Intel processor release schedules but on Mac conference schedules. Then again, this is just a "core bump", rather than a truly new product or chip; IIRC the Quad G5 followed fairly soon after the dual-core G5 processors were announced. Then again AGAIN, the XServes won't even be available 'till October; would they really update them again one or two months later?
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...
Not to mention the fact that they waited a month and a half after Woodcrest was released to announce the Mac Pro and Intel XServes -- based not on Intel processor release schedules but on Mac conference schedules. Then again, this is just a "core bump", rather than a truly new product or chip; IIRC the Quad G5 followed fairly soon after the dual-core G5 processors were announced. Then again AGAIN, the XServes won't even be available 'till October; would they really update them again one or two months later?
Anonymous Freak
Oct 6, 08:03 PM
It's difficult to say. Intel has been making engineering samples of Cloverton available to companies like Apple and Dell and motherboard makers for a while now. From the time Intel formally announces availability to the time we can buy a Cloverton Mac Pro should be a matter of days, maybe a week or two. Now, if there are problems with cooling or voltage or BIOS/ROM incompatibilities/bugs to work out, then it could be longer. I'm pretty confident that it won't be a delay anywhere near as long as the Merom Macbook[Pro] delay.
2.66GHz (or 3GHz? maybe?) Cloverton Mac Pro for me... :D Hopefully they have a better graphics card offering than the current choices too.
Nope, 2.66 is the official fastest Intel has announced. (And the nice thing about Intel, from a corporate point of view, is that they announce EVERYTHING ahead of time. So we know there won't be a surprise 3 GHz release.)
2.66GHz (or 3GHz? maybe?) Cloverton Mac Pro for me... :D Hopefully they have a better graphics card offering than the current choices too.
Nope, 2.66 is the official fastest Intel has announced. (And the nice thing about Intel, from a corporate point of view, is that they announce EVERYTHING ahead of time. So we know there won't be a surprise 3 GHz release.)
henhowc
May 6, 10:20 AM
I don't really get my calls dropped when I'm connected with someone. But I do get a lot of calls where it never rings or registers as a missed call and it just goes straight to voice mail. That's a bit frustrating. I'm in the West Los Angeles area and work in a densely populated college campus so I'm assuming that's probably contributing to the problem.
wlh99
Apr 6, 10:29 AM
I'm was a complete Mac virgin when I switched a couple of months ago but some of the small things that still annoy me.
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
Try cmd-del. (or cmd-backspace. I don't recall what it's labeled on a Mac keyboard, as I prefer a PC 101 key style)
2. It's kinda' weird that the menu bar shows at the top of the screen and not the window. When you have alot of windows open I sometimes go into the menu bar thinking it belongs to another program than what I intended.
Even more confusing with dual monitors.
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
At the bottom of the finder window it shows the complete hierarchy. You can click on that to go wherever you need. This is actually the was Vista and Windows 7 now work too, but they put the hierarchy at the top.
Reacent Post
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
Try cmd-del. (or cmd-backspace. I don't recall what it's labeled on a Mac keyboard, as I prefer a PC 101 key style)
2. It's kinda' weird that the menu bar shows at the top of the screen and not the window. When you have alot of windows open I sometimes go into the menu bar thinking it belongs to another program than what I intended.
Even more confusing with dual monitors.
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
At the bottom of the finder window it shows the complete hierarchy. You can click on that to go wherever you need. This is actually the was Vista and Windows 7 now work too, but they put the hierarchy at the top.
0 comments:
Post a Comment