I was on a small vacation last week with limited Internet access but the occasional check of the Twitters surprised me with this tweet about what may/may not be the next version of Final Cut Pro: that long rumored Super-duper Final Cut Pro Extreme Master Suite, remade from a blank slate, taking advantage of all Snow Leopard has to offer, changing the interface and raising the price–one app to rule them all. A website called Hardmac created the stir with two posts about this new version.
We’ve talked about Final Cut Pro rumors before … Apple selling the pro apps, Apple at NAB, New FCP at NAB … of course none of those things turned out to be true so it’s probably time to stop commenting on the rumors at all.
But the Hardmac speculation is too good to pass up. Of course we all know that Apple has to be working on a new version of Final Cut Pro (and pretty much all of the pro apps) that updates the applications for the modern technologies introduced with their new operating system Snow Leopard. More importantly they need all three elements of what they have to offer working smoothly as one: the operation system, the hardware and the software. The OS and the hardware are there so now they have to get the software up to speed. We currently sit with separate applications (FCP > Motion > Color) for different parts of the post process with tacked on features to address user needs: FCP’s Share menu, Color’s RED settings. Enter the idea of the all-in-one Super App. From the Hardmac website:
the suite is being entirely re-written and its interface will be deeply modified. First, all applications forming the suite will not be independent as currently, be integrated inside a single super-application. The main interface will be using the concept of rooms, where each room represents a step in the post-production workflow associated to each application – similar to the Logic Interface.
If this proves to be true it would be a huge change in the whole paradigm of how Final Cut Studio works within itself. Not that that’s a bad thing because as apps have been added into the Final Cut Studio suite they have had round-tripping “Send To” commands tacked on to accommodate. Many hate the idea of round-tripping, not just because it takes time and drive space to move back and forth between apps but that movement can be problematic. This doesn’t even account for changes that may be made after the round trip which can cause its own set of problems.
The idea of a single all-encompassing application for post production isn’t new. The Avid DS takes a similar approach with several different “rooms” for thing like titling, compositing and painting. Talk to a good DS editor and they will sing the praises of the machine and fight to near-death to defend its honor. Talk to others and they might tell the tale of a clunky, bloated behemoth that does many things adequately but nothing amazingly well. My DS experience is several versions ago and I tend to agree with the latter. As a finishing machine it stands tall but as a creative editor it was a real hindrance.
There lies the potential problem of an all in one application that Apple may (or may not) be working on. Currently in the Final Cut Studio we have 4 different core applications that cover the basis of post: FCP for edit and finish, Motion for graphics and effects; Soundtrack Pro for audio mixing and sound design and Color for grading. They are all very different interface wise (some more than others **cough**Color) and have their own quirks and personalities. And they are all developed and upgraded with their own strengths in mind. I’m not saying the same thing couldn’t happen with an all-in-one app but I see a danger in that things could get watered down and the app could become a “jack of all trades, master of none.” I would worry about core stability as well since there would have to be a massive bit of computer code lying under the hood to make all of this work. Would that make the app less stable? Maybe. Often I feel myself wishing that FCP had a cuts/dissolves only mode during the early storytelling part of an edit. Such a mode would let me move faster and block out any of the external noise and temptations of effects and motion graphics until at least the barker was completed. But maybe an all-in-one app might help with this since the edit room would probably be a very bare bones place to form a cut. On the other hand I suspect the ease of moving into other “rooms” might prove tempting and I would move on to other things too early. I guess that’s where the editor’s discipline comes in handy.
I guess what I’m discovering as I write this is that I don’t really know how I feel about this idea of an all-in-one application for post production. It certainly flies in the face of the type of facility where I currently work as we have dedicated artists for different phases of the post process, often with very expensive equipment. But as a DV Rebel at heart there’s part of me that loves the idea of being able to easily address all aspects of post with a dedicated and well designed application. That’s what I have often felt the Avid DS wasn’t – well designed. And when they tacked Media Composer-like buttons on top, that didn’t help either. In the lower budget, digital still cameras that shoot HD video world that currently exists this all-in-one app might slot in nicely until you see the claimed Hardmac price: “around 2,000 USD.” A lot of what has let Final Cut Studio be the game changer that is has become is good power at a great price. Prepare for a lot of screaming from users if the price doubles. There’s always the possibility that Apple would keep the regular Final Cut Studio at its current price point as well as this extreme all-in-one version. But let’s be honest, Apple seems to have trouble with regular updates to one Final Cut Pro, much less two.
I’ll end with this challenge to Apple: If you are creating an all encompassing post-production software suite encased within one single application, it must be fast and it must be stable (and can I beta test it?). 7 versions into Final Cut Pro we don’t want to start over with something seemingly cool that’s buggy, even if it has promise. We want it to work but we also want it to be something we need. Maybe that’s the key right there: we don’t really need something brand new at this point in time at all. We need what we have right now just updated for speed and stability with modern technologies; with a well designed (and somewhat common) interface amongst the apps in the suite; and the ability to move seamlessly between those apps. Come to think of it that’s what Adobe is trying to do with the Creative Suite. The ball is now in Apple’s court.
Popularity: 2% [?]
.gif)
25 Comments
I really find it hard to imagine an all-in-one application working that well. The interaction and operation paradigms are significantly different that it is hard to imagine a way to integrate really well.
I could see Color and FCP being better integrated (similar to Media Composer Colour Correction mode) where you have the same timeline, but aspects of the interface change to provide access to the grading aspects. The lack of integration between Color and FCP annoys the hell out of me, so that wouldn’t be a bad thing.
But for motion graphics I’m not sure it would be a benefit at all.
Practically speaking I can’t help but wonder about what an incredible task it would actually be to integrate the products. As everyone can see the UI processes behind Color are nowhere near FCP’s. In fact the whole application comes much more from a Unix-ancestor than anything else – recreating all of that with familiar OS X UI design alone would represent a massive undertaking, and having to drag the core graphics code into FCP’s codebase would be another massive challenge, for sure.
It seems hard to envisage. DS, whatever you think of it, has been designed consistently from a single starting point, rather than a few different products (from different developers in the case of Color) brought together under one banner. It’s not as Avid have tried to integrate Media Composer editing into DS, they may have taken some concepts, but that’s all.
I totally see what you are saying on the DS design. I just remember them adding the Media Composer buttons as MC editors tried to work on the system and were lost. I always thought that was much more of a stop-gap than anything meaningful.
If Apple does invent the all-in-one with the interface changing for each room then what a back-track from their advertising FCP as “mode free editing.” As I’ve always said, modes aren’t a bad thing. And if they do do an all-in-one without some type of interface changing modes / rooms …. then it may be a painful experience using the thing!
I think putting all the apps together into one super-app would be a bad move. FCP is complicated enough, without having to rejig the thing to bring in all the functionality from Soundtrack, Motion and Color, let alone DVD Studio Pro.
I agree with Dylan that some integration and redesign would be good – Color is definitely the odd man out – its interface is so completely different from any other Mac app – but of course if they made Color work like FCP or built it into FCP then current Color users are going to be upset. However I am happy to work on audio in Soundtrack, and motion graphics in motion, and then bring them together in Final Cut. A simple “embedding update” whereby an instance of a Motion file that’s modified in Motion gets updated in FCP is enough for me.
A comparison: the vector drawing app Corel Draw. Once upon a time it was the ne plus ultra of illustration apps (at least on PC) – then they started adding bitmap editing features, web features, 3D features, data merge features – and with every update they reorganized the interface to accommodate these new gizmos. It became bloated and complicated and unnecessarily hard to use.
These rumors come and go. I think the reality is that this is a monumental task and if anything, Apple has exhibited rather limited resources of late. The next task on the Pro Apps plate is an update of Aperture to compete with Adobe Lightroom 3. That will certainly take precedence over Final Cut, since it’s my belief that Aperture helps sell iMacs and MacBook Pros. These are bigger sellers for Apple than Mac Pro towers.
When you look at NLEs, they are very mature products and there is little financial incentive for Apple to completely rewrite FCS into a single uber-app. And if they did, it would be 2 years away or longer. Look at how long Adobe has been refining the interoperability of the CS package. They still haven’t ported everything over to native 64-bit. Even keeping the FCS apps distinctly separate, but more Mac-like and cohesive will take time.
Color is the way it is because it was designed for DaVinci-level colorists, not FCP-3-way-CC “graduates”. The funny thing is the the portable version of Baselight looks more like a Mac app! The big plus of Color (versus FCP) is that it isn’t limited to QuickTime, which is often a double-edged sword for FCP users.
I personally would have liked to see a somewhat “dumbed down” version of Color that would be integrated into FCP as a “mode”, much like Avid MC & Symphony.
The reality is that having multiple apps is a benefit to many users and it gives Apple a huge marketing message. This is often more important than the true functionality of the products.
- Oliver
Great comments from all and I agree completely with the fear of an uber-app. Nice idea, but the execution could be nasty – especially as it may be a promise rather than a reality. A fully 64-bit will be minimal and I would throw out that a “new” app may need to have an eye for future “cloud” computing in which a more virtual approach to desktops/servers, etc. are integrated into a super collaborative workflow through your network. Think about just editing, etc. through a browser – Just a thought!
Can any one say Autodesk Smoke? Albeit a different editing paradigm… it sounds like this is closer to what Mr. Simmons is referring to. Apple already has it’s foot in aspects of gesture and node based interactions… it may be a logical step.
I like that I can use FCS for more than one task at a time. Working in Color or Motion while FCP is rendering something is handy, or flipping between FCP and Soundtrack is something I do quite often. I would hate it if I was only able to be in one “mode” or “room” at a time. I’ve never really understood the need to integrate everything. Refined “send to” functions are good enough for me.
I hate change – still working on tiger – scarred of reinstall or losing plug in ability – BUT –
My vote for new feature – labeling of layers – ability to delete tracks by highlighting multiple tracks – and better search capabilities in browser –
BTW – it could also use a and plug in – (VBG)
As primarily a colorist. Color or as it was known “Final Touch” originally was made as a high end grading app. If you look at other similar interfaces say Scratch or Da Vinci even things like Flame etc. They all have the neutral gray interface and mostly did their own thing based on what the program evolved out of. These changes were made out of need and in some cases workflow that was expected within that discipline. Yes Color doesn’t look like Final cut.. in some cases like color grading it shouldn’t.
I believe Apple needs to be very careful in whatever they do with FCP. They have changed their pricing strategy with the latest release (very bad for students), and left out LiveType which really bothered many of us who love that powerful and simple time-saver of a titling tool without mentioning this fact with the latest release (bad Apple, bad Apple!). All of a sudden, I’m feeling compelled to look on the other side of the fence and see what all the rave reviews are about concerning the Adobe Suite…
This makes sense to me, and Apple does like to take radical turns in their product lines from time to time.
The reason it makes sense is that Final Cut Pro already duplicates the features of Studio’s other apps, just to a much lesser quality. It can composite and title, but nowhere near as well as Motion. It can edit audio, but nowhere near as well as Soundrack Pro. And it has color adjustment tools which are nowhere near as good as those in Color.
Final Cut Pro also can render Motion projects without opening Motion, which is even more duplication.
Final Cut’s interface also feels old; it could use some of Motion’s look and feel.
If they could bring FCP’s (and Color’s) interface in line with Motion and Soundtrack pro, strip out duplicate parts and replace the clunky “Send To” commands with native, inline editing, that’ll be a big win in my book.
Oliver:
My first thought when I saw the new iMacs with 16×9 screens and full 1080p or 1440p resolution was that these would make awesome budget Final Cut Pro systems.
Rich
I’ve become somewhat jaded about Jobs&Co since their colossal iSuccess in consumer lifestyle products. Though it has been unquestionably good for Apple’s bottom line, the push has come at the expense of diligence to their pro-app market, which is what propelled them to prominence in the first place. Sadly, they seem to be taking on the personality of other greedy retailers, chasing a fast buck rather than dealing with the thornier issues of building a stable, sustainable, durable product which genuinely addresses the needs (NOT WHIMS) of a professional user base.
I am with you on the worry of the possibility of this new version being unstable and a big p.o.s. However as an editor who has to color correct, sound mix, and do vfx, i would absolutely welcome a fully integrated single stop shop. The round trip in Color is an absolute joke. STP works ok unitl you have to change an edit. Which years ago it seemed you would lock an edit then do the final mastering. Now it seems I get more and more demand for the client to see and hear close to an end product but then still have the ability to make changes to the cut.
I feel FCP is in major need of a UI update. I would love the ability to change the label color of the file on the timeline (not just the text and little frame preview) Making it easy to color code sections or scenes of the timeline at a quick glance.
Also editing key frames is a joke. Coming from AE, both FCP and Motion fail drastically in this department. you should be able to effect clips with key frames way easier.
I know this isnt a wishlish forum. But I really think that we could all benefit from a complete overhaul. Window tried to keep adding features, keep adding features and it got them Vista……. need a say more.
That so called rumour is actually lifted from this blog post. http://blog.latenitefilms.com/2009/02/21/final-cut-studio-3-predictions/
Not a rumour just plagiarism.
Final Cut Studio 3 has already been released. Check the version number on the install disk. While Apple chose not to title the release FCS3 the install disk does not lie.
Version 3 was a holding release or the last update of old code as quite clearly with key technologies missing or bolted on like grand central support and no OpenCL. Before we get too giddy about a new version so quick imagine the undertaking in re-writing the whole suite…
Read the latenitefilms blog post not the rumour sites. I think the Rooms idea is a great one by the way…
I would love to see Final Cut Pro 8 — an update that refines the editing capabilities of the app, rewrites it for Snow Leopard, gets rid of the clutter (call it a Snow-Leopardization of Final Cut Pro 7), and offers it for sale on its own without the rest of the crap in the ’suite.’ Sell me a fantastic editing app for $300, and sell me the rest of the crap for $700 if I feel like throwing my money away on underdeveloped toy apps!
“That so called rumour is actually lifted from this blog post. http://blog.latenitefilms.com/2009/02/21/final-cut-studio-3-predictions/
Not a rumour just plagiarism. ”
Steve, this post was not lifted from the post that you linked. The idea of an all-in-one suite isn’t new as that post was from back in February and we discussed it back when it was posted. This post here on Studio Daily that I wrote was my thoughts reacting to the Hardmac post. When latenitefilms posted their post back in February I didn’t think much about it but the new one from Hardmac got me thinking about the all-in-one idea … that’s why I wrote this post. I am not misrepresenting the latenitefilms post and claiming it as my own work, that’s plagiarism. They have specific examples of what they would like to see and even outline a lot of that in fine detail. I did nothing like that only commenting on the idea of an all-in-one app.
All of Final Cut Studio applications have 2 things in common. They all have a time line and a some sort of a browser.
Why does each of these applications bother trying to reinvent the wheel?
Why plugins can do some of the most obvious of jobs, but the main application can’t?
Why can’t there be 1 project folder with sub folders, instead of application folders with project folders and subfolders that duplicate themselves and force you to have 1 project spread all over your computer?
Why can’t apple finder know that you are seeing a camera created folder and show you only 1 file per movie, instead of the whole structure? Or why can’t all cameras wrap their files?
Why does apple insists to have everything wrapped by quicktime?
Why can’t apple keep color consistent across applications? Why apples H264 files look different on different web browsers, but the same file played in flash looks the same on all browsers?
Why do I need 64-bit mail, calendar, and itunes, and safari? Why are the PRo applications still 32-bit?
In my view apple is not interested in the PRO market if they are not working on an unified solution that share 1 browser and 1 timeline to work with file based workflows using 64-bit.
Maya does the room idea beautifully.
Scott,
I wasn’t pointing the finger at you but at hardmac… Just want to make that clear.
SS
As I said earlier I’m in favour of the rooms idea but not necessarily a massive single application just yet.
The day will come when we have 32GB as standard even in a laptop so running one single uber App is a no-brainer but until then keep the single apps but improve the linking to 100% timeline compatible and make it dynamic, rippling through changes in one app to the other. For me this is far more important than 64bit support and would be_the_killer feature that would make FCS an even more attractive proposition.
I’m expecting the next FCS suite to be a show case for Snow Leopard’s 64bit, QTX, OpenCL and GC. Let it arrive when it’s baked…
“Scott,
I wasn’t pointing the finger at you but at hardmac… Just want to make that clear.
SS”
OK, thanks Steve. Thanks for clearing that up. The Hardmac post was very vague and they may have just been trolling for traffic (though I’m sure someone could accuse me of the same). I like to think that we are having a nice discussion on the topic in the comments here.
An easy way to integrate the apps is have a common timeline. As an example just as you can apply a filter like the 3-way to a clip you can apply the “Color” filter. The setting would be applied in “Color” and in FCP you would see a bar that the clip has to be rendered. The same would apply to Motion. You’d see a “motion filter” in FCP but if opened in Motion you’d get additional sub tracks which generate the effect. Also sum of these sub track hopfully can be edited in FCP (like text).
Mr. Simmons didn’t find the Avid DS to be a “creative tool,” and that is a shame. The issue with creativity and DS is that the creativity is limited by the operator and his or her ability to use the whole application. And it is a very deep application with a learning curve that is pretty steep.
Mr. Simmons did find that Apple’s Color was a bit hard to learn at first because of a completely different user interface and Avid DS has a 3D DVE that confounds DS editors (who have not learned it) in much the same way. You’re going to have differences in application modules where you are performing really different types of operations. I like to think of this in terms of having a font composer tool in Microsoft’s Word.
Avid DS does what Mr. Grogan suggests: There is a common timeline for all modules (or “rooms” as Mr. Simmons characterizes them). DS uses a “container” approach with the ability to quickly step out and back onto your master timeline. Avids DS is a 64-bit application, which is where Apple certainly would want to take Final Cut Studio.
As to the complexity of a unified application, to the extent that one is more familiar with certain parts of the application, one will tend to innovate in those areas more, less in areas where they are not familiar. I know this from my DS experience. We were pushed in one company to learn the 3D DVE because we had an Art Director who liked the looks we could create with it. I had to kind of “reverse engineer” some of those looks in the Graphics module to be able to create some of the looks that were being produced in Adobe’s After Effects on the DS.
If Apple unifies Final Cut Studio, they could very well make DS irrelevant, assuming Avid continues to not invest in development of the DS. As it stands presently, Avid has a long laundry list of requests from active DS artists that date back to 2005:
http://dswiki.wikispaces.com/DS+Wish+Lists
They have addressed some of the issues with their Version 10 release but they still have a long way to go with this incredible tool that doesn’t play well with others — including Avid’s own products.
Apple’s intent with Final Cut and the associated applications in the suite is not so much to develop for the Post Production community as it is to sell Macintosh computers. And every release of Apple’s software for post has made that point. Their applications continue to improve and stay relevant to the community and the community stays very happy with Apple’s hardware.
Well said Mr Hollis.
With all the talk of new integrated apps and all the rest. No-one is addressing the single most useless feature of FCP at the moment. The way it depends on Quicktime.
It is a terrible format for post production. It has become more bloated and buggy as time goes.
Fix that and then work from there….
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] Here Come More of Those FCP Rumors Again [...]
Post a Comment