Did you know that the iMac on sale at the Apple store today is more powerful than the current Mac Pro being sold on the Apple store today in terms of GPU speed? Yes, the iMac is about TWICE as fast on graphics speed when you compare the two on the latest bench mark tests (see ).

Did a little analysis at the Apple store today. A COST/BENEFIT analysis.

I found out that I could buy a MacPro for 12 grand and get 12 cores in the CPU. That Mac was loaded with an 8TB RAID. $13,000 bucks with a display. That will keep ONE person busy.

I found that I could instead with that $13000 buy 6 top of the line iMACs @ $2000/ea with each monitor equipped machine having its own graphics processor (6970) which twice as fast as the MacPro GPU, and EACH iMAC with a Quadcore processor, for a total of 24 cores, and 2 TB drive each (total of 12 TB). I could as a small business man keep SIX people busy with those machines, and when anyone of them had to RENDER, they would all have the QMASTER software going to spread that task and share all those 24 cores amongst each other. I would also have a 12 TB thunderbolt Pegasus RAID off one of those machines and share that among the group. Total of 24TB storage for 6 people. Total of 24 real cores shared via Qmaster. Everyone has a nice 27" 2560 x 1440 resolution screen.

For 13 thousand dollars. Integrated Qmaster node system. Twice as many cores. Twice as fast GPU.

Or, with MacPros I could spend that for one and keep one person busy. Which scenario gets more work done?

Has Apple abandoned the pros? I think not. The "prosumer" (so-called by some in the professional community) hardware is actually faster than what much of the professionals are now using. I think this is good for all of society.

So even with these prosumer offerings, Apple has not abandoned professionals, not if these computers are actually faster than current technology, and they are. But when Apple comes out with the rumored rack mount new Mac Pro the speeds will only jump, and then all worries of abandonment should be completely allayed. Here's the link to the "rumor" by inside sources:

http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/14/report-apple-to-return-to-nvidia-for-mac-pro-graphics-in-nehalem-update/

Professional Tools of the Trade

It seems pretty clear that for some in the professional world of video, their particular application/procedure does not work with the new FCPX, and so they call it "unprofessional." Well, no, its just a different market. Has anyone seen the Disney set for Pirates of the Caribbean? Massive. Expensive. Lesser expensive movies are no less professional. Surely the COST of the operation is not the criteria for establishing what is professional. The "broadcast tv" editor's world for FCP users has already rehashed many times among themselves in the blogosphere as to why FCPX does not work for them in the "broadcast" world, but they're only a small part of the video world of professionals, albeit a very vocal one. There's also corporate, institutional, wedding, and all kinds of professional gigs that are outside of broadcast. I'm thinking there is a pretty definitive definition of what the word professional means. It means getting paid. Professional means career. It doesn't necessarily mean the best of "good, better, best," it means business, so yeah it even includes a wedding video which I know has been put down repeatedly because they are not shown on broadcast tv to the general public, but some of those wedding videos rival anything I have EVER seen on broadcast tv in terms of quality and talent and beauty, so... it can be subjective. And it can be lucrative. The wedding video, that is.

As hard as it may be for an aspiring videographer or editor to get "in" to the broadcast world because of the stiff competitions clamoring for that gig, and the long resumes of those who are already there, that really is the last place I would like to end up. Or anyone for that matter? Its a shrinking discipline, networks seem to keep consolidating and combining the duties of the employees that survive the cut, in many cases making reporters become videographers AND editors at the same time. In other words, Producers. This dovetails into the FCPX work flow actually, because if a reporter is going to learn something new like editing, they must learn fast. FCPX.

In contrast to the broadcast work place, there are creative types that actually LIKE working out of their own office, having a schedule that they control, etc. There are more creative choices that can be made, being your own boss... What's not to like about that? It allows for the freedom to explore all kinds of opportunities that present themselves, including working on other businesses that may have nothing to do with video, like music :) There is a certain fulfillment that comes from directly doing or participating in all of the production elements from videography to lighting to editing in post to composing music to production of all of it. There is personal fulfillment in that. It's called being an independent producer and it not not only the future, but that future is already! One can aspire to being a producer, and it is in my opinion the most interesting role. FCPX seems to be a great tool to make this much more possible in the current highly competitive professional atmosphere. FCPX has turned many more people into editors, even kids, and will continue to do so. FCPX will be showing up in a lot of very high end work flows in the future as more people continue to embrace it. Its just a TOOL.

If there are editors today using FCP7 now in the broadcast world who are worried about what Apple did, or even put off by the rise of FCPX and no FCP8 forthcoming, they probably ought to be a little worried about that and find additional ways to remain relevant outside of just editing, because its not about the single editing TOOL anymore. Its now about the BIG PICTURE. Its about the story and getting it done and told in shorter amounts of time. It's about taking control of one's own world. It means that traditional methods and work flows will soon be a thing of the big budgets of the past, and creative editors/producers will collaborate more and more with each other to get the work out, specializing. I am thinking PRODUCER is what an editor needs to become if they haven't already. Then maybe they can keep their skills relevant in the long term. Produce. That's the whole gig.
Grant Johnson

Apple Will Dictate the Direction of the Video Market

News today says APPLE's value will soon exceed 500 billion in market capitalization. They are the most valuable company in all of the world* Twice as big as Walmart. Bigger than Exxon. Twice as big as Microsoft. Apple's Final Cut competitor Premier is made by the Adobe company who has a current market value of 15 billion. Media Composer video editor is the current "top of the line" (as in most expensive by far) made by the Avid company, who has approximately a 1/3 of a billion market value. Just to put that in perspective, Apple is 1500 times bigger than Avid. Apple has the ability to move markets, and they are. Things are shifting. I don't know, but I am thinking that a company with 1,500 times more market value than its main competitor Avid, has the power to shift trends and methods a little. While Apple's stuff is surging in popularity, more professionals are beginning to start using their newer products, such as FCPX. They are giving it a shot. Who could not think that what Apple lays out for all to use is not the direction things will go? It absolutely is. The growth trends bear that out, the past decade bears that out, and there is no sign of is slowing down. But all the other guys ARE slowing down. Whether it makes sense or not, its all going to go this direction just like we got Windows when Microsoft controlled/dominated the market and copied a lot of Apple things, the market will now go the way that Apple takes it because they are in the drivers seat now. They are twice the size of Microsoft and have a constant upward growth rate. Relevance of the pc diminishes and the iOS increases with every iPAD and smart phone sold. Professionals of all industries will be shifting the way they do work, because as the demand for ordinary computers goes down and costs go up, economics will dictate how people do work in the future. An appliance that is your book, your camera, your internet, your interface to just about everything, all rolled into one, well... Bill Gates original "vision" of a pc in every home is being supplanted by a computing device in every HAND.

When I see professional musicians hooking all kinds of music instruments up to the "toy" iPAD at the NAMM shows, and I was there, they do and a it does look very strange, even dumbed down a bit, but what's wrong with a lower price point anyway? We see how software running on those things is gaining in popularity because it is so dang convenient and the big one time cost is the iPAD, there is no way that I can't think its also going to happen to the mainstream of video processing. FCPX will be looking pretty good on one of those, if that's the way its done in the future, because it lends itself to that drag and drop stuff. FCPX is to the video world what the DAW was to the music world, a game changer. FCPX will cause a lot more people in the world to learn how to edit video, and the skill set will significantly increase, just like it did in the studio world of music, the DAW world. And, just like they came out initially with small laptop screens, but they came out with larger screens in time, surely, there will be a large iPAD touch screen offering in the future for those of us who really like real estate space on a “desktop.” If SUPPORT for traditional workflows in video editing wanes, surely there will be more professionals using the firewire and prosumer tools because they just "work" with apple products. I can see that... Heck, the iPAD is a “prosumer” tool.

* http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottdecarlo/2011/08/11/the-worlds-25-most-valuable-companies-apple-is-now-on-top/

FCPX is to the video world what the DAW was / is to the music world. FCPX=DVW

THE OLD VIDEO EDITING WAY, WITH BOXES:

Many video editors today are placing a lot of trust in the technology of the past, in the established methods and current procedures for video acquisition and editing in post. But that's all in flux now. As costs come down for cameras and computers and software apps, all of those boxes and hardware are now completely replicated inside the amazing Intel chip inside a desktop or laptop computer, the game changes. Dinosaur equipment gets replaced with much lower cost personal computer options that have even more power and features than their predecessors. To get a glimpse of how this will all play out in the video world, all one has to do is look how the music world panned out, since it led the way and the whole paradigm of music creation and production is all done in a DAW.

THE OLD MUSIC RECORDING WAY, WITH HUGE GEAR:

It used to be that multi-million dollar STUDIOS were the only place that high quality work got done (not any more), and if a band signed with a label, the label used to contract them to record all their album in their megamillion dollar studio and they charged a million bucks to the band for that "service" which immediately put the band in great debt to the label. These record companies kept that RACKET going for decades. Only the hugest names in music were ever able to break away from that and make their OWN million dollar studio. Everyone else had to settle for a lousy four track tape recorder with severe limitations, dreaming that someday they too could rack up a dependence on the million dollar boys who were the gatekeepers. Not any more. In fact, there are NO limitations with a personal computer and a few key peripherals. There is absolutely NO advantage today to the studios with the large consoles out there because it can all be done in software within a DAW (digital audio workstation), and it only "looks" impressive to see 64 faders. There still is SOME of that going on, but its a real niche, and for the most part, an illusion.

Record companies today are running with extant recordings made by the artists themselves in their garages, because its good enough, and because their fans already like it. I recorded and filmed a band signed with Atlantic records recently, and Atlantic doesn't bring much to the table, frankly. They bring distribution and promotion.

THE NEW MUSIC RECORDING WAY, THE DAW:

Avid will gobble up the same so-called "high end" niche in motion pictures, but it is a shrinking niche compared to the field of users and talent that exist outside that niche. And they are making more than wedding video summaries. The rapidly expanding niche I just joined, the FCPX users, that's a huge and growing niche, and its comparable to what happened in music when it was within reach to get a Digitial Audio Workstation. Now we have professional musicians using DAWs on a laptop and making their products OUTSIDE the expensive studios. Who needs them? I have had bands that have sold MILLIONS of records buy my software products to help them with their craft, on a laptop DAW, so I do know it has all gone the way of the VST in a laptop studio. Now we have all these record companies scrambling trying to remain relevant, but they are shrinking, gobbling each other up until there only the three big ones left now. The "Big 5" major record companies became the "Big 4" in 2004 when Sony acquired BMG, and the "Big 3" when EMI was acquired by Universal in 2011.

Music industry just went first. Same thing is happening with motion picture now as these awesome tools get into the hands of the masses. You will soon see that the best stuff does not come from LA/Hollywood, or rather motion picture studios become more of a DISTRIBUTION channel (like Disney did for Pixar), but the making of movies will be done by the people who have talent and a tools to make HD and 3D motion pictures. People with cinematic talent, and for all they care, it could be done on FCPX if it is created in an unconventional way. There is no reason why it can't. The only reasons I have heard professionals state who argue against FCPX is that it can't talk to their specific cameras, it can't write to the tape of their liking, and it can't do multicam edits. Those are good reasons, but they are hardly deal breakers for those who don't depend on all that, and who use high def firewire products in capturing motion images.

THE NEW VIDEO EDITING WAY, THE DVW (Digital Video Workstation):

The only thing that will keep the big companies relevant is to repackage everything into a 3D wrapper. Repackage in such a costly process, that only they can do it. I don't know about you, but 3D glasses are a pain to wear when I watch a movie, and I can only take so much of projectiles narrowly missing my head. Gimmick. What does this all mean? It means that those who now work in the big industry and keep referring to everything else going on as wedding vids and home movies are in denial as to what is really going on. Its not about Avid. Its about FCPX. It will take off like the iPAD did and it has become to the movie world what the DAW became to the music world. FCPX is the DAW.

FCPX is Fast. Even with several other programs running.

Some pro editors were saying how slow FCPX was in the edit. I didn't have that experience on my new Mac Mini, so I did a test. I opened up FCPX on my mac mini server quad core running Lion, and threw a few curve balls at it. Like running a 1080P video screen capture program while I switched between programs (see vid below), a process that is intense in and of itself, and I did it while FCPX was playing a video from the timeline, and in the background I was doing file maintenance on my Microsoft Entourage (Outlook) email program... Here's a 1080P screen capture of running 5 fairly intense programs at once on my mac mini server quad core i7, including FCPX doing playback unrendered (orange line still there), iTunes is open taking up RAM, Firefox open taking up RAM, and Microsoft Entourage open and doing a 3 minute intense file deletion process of 25000 messages getting deleted engaging the hard drive, and capturing all this into a 1 GB file running Screenflick capturing 1080P. That's three intense hard drive activities taking place simultaneously, and yet the playback in FCPX was still pretty good. Screenflick was only able to grab about 20 frames/sec considering. One trick I have found in running the program to make the playback much smoother is to change the “Playback Quality” option from “High Quality” to “Best Performance.” This helps prevent playback stutter inside of FCPX.