Adobe sees RED. Apple cant see past their Quicktime
Whilst logic would reason it was inevitable,
the announcement last week that RED 4k R3D files would be natively supported in Adobe Premiere Pro and After Effects still came as a small shock-like surprise.
Until now Apple's Final Cut Pro had an intimate and almost exclusive relationship with RED albeit through some convoluted workflow, transcoding/proxy processes and a lack of real 4k resolution support with suite apps like Color.
Adobe joining the Red-ready club isn't unexpected but they have done what Apple have failed and/or refused to do; support R3D files natively. As the RED site itself saids "
FCP only uses the QT reference files which access the RAW R3D files, it does not actually use the Native R3D files to edit with." (Apple have a history with playing loose with the truth when it comes to 'Native' suppourt. But we'll come back to that...)
The new REDsupport in After Effects and Premiere Pro will allow the native R3D files to be dropped straight on the timeline without an intermediate format conversion, reference files or transcoding process. The surface significance of this approach may be increased efficiency and flexibility in the post workflow but there is also a deeper issue with broader industry contexts.
This is not the first time we've seen the underlying engine of Adobe's video apps aim squarely at accommodating native no-fuss direct support of new formats. An approach that amounts to a very nonproprietary universal and inclusive perspective. Sony's XDCAMEX format uses an MP4 wrapper to mount an Mpeg2 essence on the SxS card and here Adobe took the approach to able to work directly with the MP4 rather than utilize any re-wrapping process.
Apple by contrast with XDCAMEX refuse to use the non-proprietary open MP4 standard wrapper and instead enforce a mandatory re-wrapping to a proprietary Quicktime MOV wrapper via a software app external to FCP. (I
ndeed, even HDV is not truly native in Final Cut Pro. This article points out the issues, namely that whilst FCP reads the Mpeg2 codec natively it cannot read the universal native MPEG and M2T wrappers or indeed work to the true HDV spec. Instead, as per XDCAMEX, FCP insists on a re-wrap from the native format to QuickTime MOV. The negative result is that HDV files captured with FCP to MOV wrappers are often unreadable by other software despite being HDV compliant.)
I say 'refuse' to use MP4 because there really is no technical reason why FCP couldn't work directly with MP4 files around XDCAMEX mpeg2 codec (or if there is then FCP's architecture is even more archaic than many have long suspected) Therefore the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that Apple deliberately enforce a strict proprietary policy of Quicktime exclusivity that is arbitrary and unnecessary. Moreover one that requires extraneous processes to re-wrap files just to meet FCP's intrinsic restrictions/limitations.
This pattern is a repitition of that of Panasonic P2 footage which natively uses the open MXF wrapper but which again FCP cannot read or use as-is. Instead again a re-wrapping process is used to transfer the essence from an MXF wrapper to a MOV one. Likewise with Sony ProDisc XDCAM-HD which also uses MXF.
What do Apple have to gain by this insistence on QT at the expense of native suppourt of open formats? Certainly users don't benefit; there's no advantage of this non-direct support. Whilst it may be argued that the QT rewrapping processes are effective there are no tangible gains and an invariable lack of efficiency from not directly supporting camera native formats (along with the aforementioned issues of HDV)
The only conclusion to come to is that Apple are clinging on to the idea that the world revolves around QuickTime. I hate to break it to you Steve J but the world has moved on. Whilst QT may have been the engine that underpinned the digital media evolution a decade ago, the universal appeal of QT is now substantially diminished.
Instead we have seen the increasing use of corporation-independent, open standard wrapper/containers such as MXF, MPEG, M2T and MP4 .
What this has meant for good ol' QT is that it is no longer a default wrapper, no longer a universal engine, no longer a video default. Apple fought long and hard to try and have MOV cemented as the standard for the h.264/AVC codec and thankfully for all they failed with the international standard being set to the open MP4 framework. A victory for nonproprietary thinking and a significant step toward open standards.
So whilst Adobe are embracing this trend toward open, inclusive and efficient direct native support right across their product line for video production, Apple by contrast seem to clinging to an isolationist, befuddled attempt to protect QuickTime at all costs.
Is it loyalty to their own product? Is it ignorance? Defiance? Or just arrogance?
The ability to work natively with R3D files in AE and PP is a major step forward. If Apple were headed by a different CEO director other than the mighty Ego of Steve I would have no doubt that such a development would have Apple developers scrambling to join the party of native support and start letting go of antiquated QuickTime loyalty.
But I fear they won't. I fear Apple will continue to display their very own brand of insularity. I fear we will continue to see Apple play protectionist with QT and avoid at all costs moves towards open formats and system flexibility. I fear MXF, M2T, MP4 will all be wrappers that Apple refuses to really play effectively with for some time to come - "give me quicktime or give me death" sings the tired mantra...
Sadly the detriment will be to FCP users as other NLE?s move toward a more flexible future. Hats off to Adobe, who dont always get it right but should be applauded for these moves toward openess.
Posted at 12:00AM Aug 08, 2008
by Mike Jones in industry comment |
The only reason why Apple bought Final Cut from Macromedia was to suport and expand the quicktime tecnology and win the race quicktime versus avi (microsoft)
The emmy or any goal achived during that proccss was a secondary effect, but just an effect...
The main goal is the supremacy of the Quicktime standard
Posted by weba on August 08, 2008 at 01:27 AM EST #
What would keep apple from opening up the RED SDK and rolling there own support. within the year I expect all of the "A" companies to have R3D support as well as many others. In my opinion Adobe needs to run double time if it wants to hold back the FCP wave.
Posted by R. on August 08, 2008 at 01:35 AM EST #
Posted by dave on August 08, 2008 at 01:43 AM EST #
I seriously hope Apple is listening-FCP does need a refresh.
Posted by brian on August 08, 2008 at 01:45 AM EST #
"Although Adobe Premiere Pro is not a native 64-bit application, it can run on 64-bit versions of Windows Vista. In this configuration, you can install up to 64GB of RAM in the system, and Adobe Premiere Pro can address up to 3GB of this RAM."
3GB? Meh.
I believe it's the same situation with FCP. Until these proggies are 64-bit, you are whining about the wrong thing IMO.
Posted by Mike Peter Reed on August 08, 2008 at 02:51 AM EST #
Second, MXF is no more corporation-independent than QuickTime.
Third, QuickTime's file format and codecs are open and fully documented and has been from the start.
Fourth, no-one is stopping RED from implementing its codecs as QuickTime-compatible and making everything seamless. Heck, Microsoft has done it by acquiring Flip4Mac.
Adobe is seeing the "open" light because H264 is killing their closed, undocumented, proprietary video formats (i.e. FLV).
Posted by Tonio Loewald on August 08, 2008 at 03:05 AM EST #
Quicktime X is on it's way and I'm sure Apple will get Fully RED compliant, but Apple as you well know, has many eggs on it's basket right now and until RED is really all over the place, it's probably down on their to do list.
Posted by Dorian Mattar on August 08, 2008 at 03:40 AM EST #
"Sony's XDCAMEX format uses an MP4 wrapper to mount an Mpeg2 essence on the SxS card and here Adobe took the approach to able to work directly with the MP4 rather than utilize any re-wrapping process."
As I understand, there is nothing standard about putting MPEG-2 video in a MP4 package. MPEG-4 uses H.264 ("MPEG 4 part 10") or the backwardly grandfathered in H.263 ("MPEG-4 part 2"). Using other codecs inside the MP4 container is not standard.
The fact that Apple uses its own native MOV container (you don't seem to recall that Apple submitted to the ISO as the foundation for the MP4 container) to accommodate the wild array of different codecs and formats for editing in FCP is hardly an example of Apple going its own way. There is no other way to go.
Suggesting that QuickTime is in any way "antiquated" is a misunderstanding of reality.
Posted by Daniel Eran on August 08, 2008 at 04:12 AM EST #
Posted by Brad J Swenson on August 08, 2008 at 05:15 AM EST #
So to some responses as I think there is some misinformation and misconceptions floating around here.
I think its a mistake to say that "MP4 is based on the QuickTime container format willingly handed over (royalty free) by Apple." There was nothing willing about it. Apple worked long and hard to avoid MP4 being adopted as a container, lobbying very hard to have MOV adopted by the international standards body instead. in the end Apple gave up and acquiesced, but certainly under duress.
"MXF is no more corporation-independent than QuickTime." Um, actually it is. MXF is a SMTPE implemented standard that is independent of any particular developer and is an open framework - SMPTE 377M. Quicktime is a wholly company owned proprietary technology and format. Unfortunately some of those who have implemented MXF have added some proprietary material (Sony and Panasonic as guilty parties) leading to incompatibilities but the MXF as a standard itself is still an Open standard. Developed by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE), a member of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
"no-one is stopping RED from implementing its codecs as QuickTime-compatible and making everything seamless" True, but it bothers me that they would need to when there are non-QT and non-proprietary options available that Apple seem deliberately unwilling to support.
Quicktime X is interesting but whilst we'll likely see good performance and feature enhancements I severely doubt it will change anything in the way Apple overtly protects QT as a format. QTX wont make them a more open company with a more standards accessible culture.
"there is nothing standard about putting MPEG-2 video in a MP4 package." True only in the sense that the Ex1 is the first to do it. But it is a common myth that the MP4 wrapper has anything directly to do with the Mpeg4 format, it just happens that M4 is most commonly used for h.264/AVC. MP4 is and always was designed as a container for all manner of codec essences.
"The fact that Apple uses its own native MOV container... to accommodate the wild array of different codecs and formats for editing in FCP is hardly an example of Apple going its own way. There is no other way to go. "
Really...? Sounds to me like you havnt used any other NLE than FCP. Premiere pro, Edius, liquid and particularly Vegas are all Format and codec agnostic - they happily mix containers, codecs, resolutions and formats in real-time. have done so for many years. Its was good belly laugh when Apple announced FCP6 would have an "open timeline" Well about bloody time, because Everyone else was on that conga line 3, 4, 5 years earlier. What the hell took FCP so long to catchup? The underlying QT engine of FCP has some fundamental flaws in efficiency and as a result FCP is one of the few NLE's that actually needs unified MOV wrappers where as other NLE's dont have such demands.
Just to step back for a little perspective.
The simple fact im pointing to here is that Apple does not like to play friendly with Open formats, or indeed anything other than QT. This is just a long standing fact. This can ONLY be deliberate because I find it preposterous to believe that the FCP developers arent capable of making the engine of FCP much more open, flexible and efficient than it currently is. The conclusion therefore is that its a concerted protectionist policy on Apple's part to insulate QuickTime.
Some of my readers obviously have no problem with that. FCP works very well and the re-wrapping processes to Qt are relatively seamless. Fine and dandy.
BUT I would argue, as with many others, that open formats are better for the industry. The wider production community hasn't yet pulled it off. AAF has never taken off as it should. MXF has been dicked around with by Sony and Panasonic. But the principle remains - Open formats controlled by SMPTE and not by a company are the best thing for the industry as a whole, the best thing for third-party developers, the best thing for users. they promote exchange and flexibility rather than isolationist insularity which has too often been the hallmark of both Apple and Avid.
Thanks for reading.
Mike
Posted by Mike ones on August 08, 2008 at 10:02 AM EST #
With Premiere chocking on larger HDCAM EX projects, I'm not so sure anyone's going to be editing native RED files. I think the announced RED support was more PR than practical.
Posted by E.J. Sadler on August 08, 2008 at 12:33 PM EST #
I understand your point with this post, but I have to say that this feels very ideological and disconnected from the real world of digital post production. No offense, since you clearly are a smart guy that knows his stuff... but...
For starters... you spend this entire time talking about how proprietary Apple is with Final Cut Pro as compared to Adobe, yet fail to discuss Avid even once. I know two wrongs don't make a right (if this is a wrong) but seriously, Premiere is not even close to being a professional standard compared to Avid of Final Cut Pro. And the Red is a professional camera. So if you're going to root for Adobe Premiere's approach, you really should discuss Avid as well. Adobe is an underdog here, trying to differentiate. I'm glad as it'll push Apple. Competition is king. But premiere still isn't there yet as a full-fledged FCP competitor from what I understand of it (though I haven't used it since 5.1 so I only know that I don't see it around in NYC and the TV networks or indie films).
The other problem is the idea of making .R3D support into a case study at it's current stage. I've shot with the RED on my last 5 commercials and it's wonderful... but it's still very beta. Build 16 apparently changes just about everything including the Redcode RAW codec. So I wouldn't be celebrating anybody's approach to RED workflow as the holy grail until the platform stabilizes. Jim Jannard has "everything in life changes, including our camera specs and delivery dates" as his reduser signature for a reason. Apple may be wise to keep their support safely behind quicktime wrappers and favoring prores offline wok for now.
Also, I think it's pretty much an opinion built on pop culture consensus to blame Steve Jobs for how Final Cut Pro handles particular file formats. That really is a stretch. It's very fashionable, but too simplistic and frankly just unsubstantiated. I'm not saying it's wrong. Just that it's a allegation in need of proof beyond the standard "Jobs is a control freak" lore.
It could be that Final Cut Pro's architecture just requires this approach. Avid's certainly requires it with OMFI media and with much worse impact on workflow flexibility. That's a technology problem, not a Steve Jobs problem. If it is, in fact, a problem at all. I'm not aware of any edit facility or network that has a mixed edit system workflow. If you're using Final Cut Pro at your place, you're using Final Cut Pro and the QuickTime format is your friend. Moving between Premiere, Avid and Final Cut Pro isn't part of a workflow that I think most people want or need. At least more than once on a project, that is. Some may offline on FCP and online on Avid... but those workflows aren't concerned with HDV or any other heavily compressed format like XDCAM or DVC Pro HD.
I've been working flawlessly with DVC Pro HD for years in Final Cut and more recently working with the EX1's XDCAM format just as smoothly. And using Prores as an "offline" format buys far more realtime power while editing than giving up so much processing to live debayering... which R3D or QuickTime wrappers requires.
The other thing about the QuickTime approach is that requiring support at the QuickTime level enables that support across all video applications on the Mac. This is the fundamental element of Final Cut Pro on a Mac that makes it awesome. The platform. That smooth (generally) movement between the App, the OS and the rest of the suite as well as third party apps. If an app can read quicktime, it's generally good to go. What this of course meant was that the QuickTime wrapper feature of the RED actually enabled After Effects to read these files before Adobe had to explicitly write in support for the format.
That's the power of the QuickTime layer approach.
So my guess would be that this isn't a Final Cut Pro issue at all. This is a QuickTime issue. Just as Aperture relies on the OS-level raw engine that is available to the whole system and enables camera raw files to open in Preview, Quicklook and I believe any cocoa app... Final Cut Pro relies on QuickTime for it's format and codec support.
Now... if you want to talk about QuickTime's bipolar disorder as a pro-media framework and the guts for iTunes and it's DRM... that's a whole different discussion.
Love your production company website layout, btw. Very clean. And sorry for the monster post. I'm a workflow dork.
Posted by John Papola on August 08, 2008 at 01:11 PM EST #
You raise great issues and arguments. You're dead right, I am taking a broad idealogical perspective on this. Quite deliberately. Debate too often gets drowned in the trenches instead of elevating itself from he detail to consider the bigger implications that are long term and more broad reaching.
The QT architecture certainly works. There's no doubt. The argument is academic; it about ensuring that creative process built from technology (as cinema in all its forms is) is elevated from the more often than not insular prerogatives of corporate entities. QT for the most part works, FCP for the most part is highly effective, but that is, i would argue, not the point. The point is that the concept of QT is flawed, that ideally universal open, non-proprietary formats would lead to a more flexible and creative environment - one freed somewhat from corporate directives.
None of that counters what you have articulately argued. Just trying to take a bigger picture from the day to day to look more long term to what he creative industries need and, moreover, deserve.
I would suggest that regarding FCP and Premiere, you need to go drive PremPro. It doesnt have the takeup yet that FCP has, doesnt have the profile. But on technical paper there is nothing to be argued that PP cant play head to head and even exceed the reach of FCP. I have near 15 years on both (and others) and feature for feature FCP is very weak by comparison - audio is better in PP, titling is better in PP, colour correction is far better in PP, integration with the software suite is better in PP than any other system. These are not opinions, but technical facts. None of these of course make PP 'better', thats far too subjective (FCP is certainly proven, PP is desperately trying to prove itself) but you're on a misguided tract to think of PP as not "there yet as a full-fledged FCP competitor". It certainly doesnt yet compete on marketing and industry perception. But on technology it went past FCP some time ago. Tragically 8 out 10 FCP editors ive ever known have never used any other NLE so their opinions are sadly shaped purely by a singular and insular perspective. Again the example of FCP6's 'Open Timeline' which caused such a cheer from FCP users and had everyone else gasping with laughter as FCP finally caught up with where Premeiere, Avid, Vegas, Edius had been for 3-5 years!.
And, you're right about Avid. i didnt bring them into this debate. truth is It really wasnt meant to be about NLE's or about which software developer was taking the most OPEN approach. Thats a bigger discussion. Simply to observe that Apple seem to have a pretty negative attitude to open standards and Adobe seem to be taking a more liberal approach of late. Nothing more than that. I have a long list of Adobe criticisms as well but thats not the point either.
Again, many thanks for your thoughts. Please feel free to write detailed posts here anytime. I love informed discussion and sadly a great many of the comments that pop up on my blog are rather derivative; so yous was welcome fresh air.
Posted by Mike Jones on August 08, 2008 at 04:35 PM EST #
Posted by Chad Clemans on August 08, 2008 at 05:10 PM EST #
There's a big difference between embracing open interoperability and trying to chase a willy-nilly bunch of minority "standards" that may have been published by rubber stamp standards bodies like the SMPTE, or are "open" in the sense that some group declared it open without having the accountability to back up patent or other IP claims that might contaminate it.
Apple doesn't need to support every codec and container format anyone can invent or scrounge up, just because somebody thinks it should on some sort of ideological grounds.
It makes no sense for Apple to cater to SMPTE's VC-1 for example, as it has no moral responsibility to create a market for Windows Media.
It would be a waste of time for Apple to try to backwardly support the old hat H.263/MPEG-2/DIVX, when superior codecs now exist with a lot more gas to move into the future with. That's primarily a demand from the stolen movie crowd.
And Apple doesn't have to get behind OGG and all the other FOSS pseudo-standards that nobody uses, which are likely tainted by IP issues.
Similarly, Apple doesn't have to support every oddball assortment of containers and codecs when it has its own QuickTime architecture, which is fully extendable by third parties who want to introduce new containers and codecs.
And as for Apple resisting MP4, do you have any substantive source for that? Because all I've ever seen is that the industry backed Apple's bid to offer MOV as the container format for MPEG-4 in 1998, and the official specification for MP4 is nearly identical to MOV, in the same sense that WMV = VC-1.
That is, Microsoft lost the bid to get its own container declared the ISO/MPEG-4 standard, so it ran to the SMTPE to get WMV entered as a secondary standard (much as it did more recently with OOXML).
Apple uses MOV because it accommodates any number of QuickTime codecs. MP4 is essentially identical, but the specification only officially allows for H.264/AAC.
QuickTime will stuff anything in a MOV, but will only allow H.264/AAC within a MP4 container. If it didn't, that MP4 wouldn't play anywhere else, just as Sony's oddball XDCAMEX MP4s are not compatible with the spec and therefore require rewapping to use in FCP.
Calling XDCAMEX an "open standard" and crying foul that QuickTime doesn't accommodate it as a legitimate codec when it clearly isn't according to the ISO/MPEG seems like a rather convolutedly bizarre worldview.
Some company doing something in their own interests for whatever reason does not automatically instantiate an "open standard," nor does it morally obligate Apple to expend the efforts to support it natively when it is not in Apple's interests to do so.
Interoperability is great, but selecting Apple as the scapegoat that must deliver interoperability for the rest of the world at its own expense, and while its competitors are not doing anything to foster interoperability themselves is, again, a weird way to look at things.
Steve Jobs is not Jesus Christ, he's a CEO.
Posted by Daniel Eran on August 08, 2008 at 07:49 PM EST #
Cheers
Mike
Posted by Mike Jones on August 08, 2008 at 09:59 PM EST #
Thanks for the discourse. I love it. I feel strongly that, at our best, our business is a community effort to enrich our collective art and this kind of civil, intelligent discussion is the best example of that. Leaving the partisan hackery out is so nice. You have a great site here, btw. Lots of really good content. Bravo. You're in my bookmarks baby!
I see your point from ideological grounds and I understand the desire to frame the debate on that front. Open standards exist and in theory there should be no reason to wrap them in another layer, especially if the purpose of that wrapper is driven by a company's desire to lock-in or push their format agenda. But I believe there needs to be proof that Apple isn't serving technical needs before we hit them on the "evil corporate proprietary" front. Clearly, QuickTime is a great foundational layer for media production on the Mac and Apple does a good job of expanding it's support for codecs and standards.
Daniel has already weighed in on things in a way that I can broadly agree with.
I would only expand on his criticism of the notion of "standards". There sure are a ton of "standards" to pick from these days. And how "standard" they are is far from an axiom of absolute truth. If SMPTE anoints a standard that nobody uses, is it a standard? If that process involved corporate lobbying and back-room deals, as the OpenXML document standard did with ISO... does it have any ethical leg up on something like QuickTime?
This "support standards" mantra is often a strawman, I think, that is used to beat an anti-corporate drum. To get vaguely political... what's so bad with extensible proprietary standards if they work? What's so wrong with a company dumping massive resources into tools that empower us and then expecting some kind of return. I can't help but pick up the whiff of central planning and *gasp* socialist undertones in much of the "open standards" discussion. I'm not casting aspersions here and acknowledge the hyperbole, but just digging into the top-level ideological debate.
The fact is, we rely on these companies competing to advance our tools, not on the standards bodies. Competition is the mechanism that advances our tools the fastest and I'm even willing to side with Microsoft here in support of the notion that the "standards" bodies are often too slow, beauacratic and consensus-driven to provide solutions the market wants. They are there, in theory, to help moderate the ensuing Chaos so that a rising tide of interoperability lifts all boats for the tools market. But theory and reality don't always intersect.
In truth, there is no clean ideological front that matters in any appreciable way in the field. As in economics, there is an ongoing balance between the forces of innovative free markets and the nature of emergence, and the tidy but stifled world of central planning and standardization.
On the open and extensibility front, Final Cut Pro's XML format is the exact opposite of lock-in. And I fail to see a convincing argument that any of these format and codec issues are about lock-in. It's about delivering a product that works, which is Apple's first and guiding ethic (even if they sometimes miss the mark). I don't think we can pin Apple with the same tactics that drove Microsoft to develop WMV (Windows Monopoly protection).
Frankly, I think QuickTime represents the best balance of rapid innovation in new codec/format support with the abstraction and standardization of a common wrapper. Sure, it's Apple's standard... but it works.
Now, QuickTime is clearly not problem-free. We can dig deep into gamma shift issues, limits within Windows and iTunes-related updates that break things and go nuts. But to be frank, the onus is on these new formats to prove themselves and their workflows to be relevant in the marketplace... not on Apple to chase every direction. There is a cost to chasing these formats and I imagine that each new format has it's own limitations that shrinks the common denominator of expected functionality. Perhaps Apple is using QuickTime to ensure a common layer that abstracts away the myriad differences here. I'm actually pretty sure that that is the purpose. Not "evil" corporate lock-in.
These standards bodies are hardly a politics-free zone. To get back to ideology, I think there is more than enough room for debate about the merit of some of these stamps of approval and the slow, group-think on which they are often based.
At the end of the day, Apple, Adobe, Microsoft and Avid are all first and foremost beholden to their customers for delivering a smooth functioning experience. Adhering to a philosophy above the functionality of the tools help noone but the partisan at the free software foundation. It certainly doesn't help me get my stuff on the air any faster.
Posted by John Papola on August 09, 2008 at 04:46 AM EST #
An absolutely superb, considered and consummate response here. So much so that you have genuinely prompted me to reconsider some of the things I initially wrote.
Points you raise such as
"if SMPTE anoints a standard that nobody uses, is it a standard? If that process involved corporate lobbying and back-room deals, as the OpenXML document standard did with ISO... does it have any ethical leg up on something like QuickTime?"
Are very hard to refute. Similarly I totally agree on FCP's move to XML over AAF. I love the 'idea' of AAF, and have been a strong advocate in the past, but it also has far too much baggage and disfunctionality. XML is absolutely the way to go and we need all software developers - NLE and DAW alike - to get onboard with XML as an exchange language.
There is an inherent utopian ideal in a set of open format standards that all developers embrace. And yet, in lieu of such universal agreement which (tragically) you are right, may never be forthcoming, I concede there is much to be said for QT's holistic approach - propritary and at times flawed as it is.
I still have some genuine reservations about FCP's use of QT at times. The HDV example is one; where FCP does not actually use the HDV spec or defined container as described and HDV captured to FCP, subsequently re-rapped to MOV, creates HDV files that often cannot be read outside FCP. For a format as ubiquitous and useful as HDV this seems overtly obtuse. A deliberate 'lock in', perhaps not. But restrictive certainly.
But your point about "the onus is on these new formats to prove themselves and their workflows to be relevant in the marketplace..." is well taken.
After nearly a decade writing as an industry journalist and commentator, having used and abused every software tool on the market, Im afraid the ongoing dealings I have with the major software and hardware developers often leave me cold. Ive seen very little evidence of a true regard for advancing the industry and greater empowerment of users. The prime objective, of course, is securing market share. I would contest these two - market share and industry advancement - do not by default equate to the same thing.
But this is not to say that there is necessarily a better solution or even that open standards deliver what they promise.
What I would contest is that it is crucial for the vitality of the industry, both creatively and economically, that all the companies are made acutely aware that their users are Not benign; that they are Not blithely accepting of what they are given. Apple's deathly loyal userbase has long been regarded as their best corporate asset - certainly it is the most effective work of brand recognition since the Swastika. But I'd also argue this deathly loyal culture of Apple users, which often breeds a blinkered psychophancy, is also the company's greatest weakness. Apple users are too often complacent. Fed by the marketing culture of Apple they simply dont demand better because they've been convinced (or convinced themselves) that they already have the 'best'.
I'm a long time mac user - teach and use Macs and FCP everyday - but complacency leads to staleness. When users dont demand better, when they dont point out the failings, or request more, or pounce on the inadequacies with fervor, the products they use are diminished. I fear this is exactly what has happened to FCP. FCP was once the great innovator of NLE's but the last 3 versions (4-6) have seen nothing that could really be seen as innovative or 'new' the world of NLE's. What Apple have done with FCP, extremely successfully, is commoditize the NLE environment but they certainly havent advanced it. FCP is reliable, stable, proven and popular but it is not free-thinking, it's not pushing the boundaries. I think that's a shame and i think it comes from a distinct culture that constitutes endless praise rather than endless prompting for 'more' and 'better'.
Just about every other NLE has far from complacent users. No one complains more about Avid than Avid users. Rightly so. And with the big upheaval and change of direction and 'attitude' Avid are undertaking right now we can see the fruits of this (perhaps too little too late, but time will tell)
Users of Premiere are the first to berate Adobe with their demands. Users of Vegas are the first to flood Sony with their requests and wish lists and disappointments at features unfulfilled. This type of users base has forced Adobe and Sony to innovate and be adventurous on a level far exceeding Apple in recent years. (Enough to take FCP's market share..? Not in the short term. But long term? Apple may have problems if they are forced to play perpetual catchup - resting on their laurels so to speak)
Vegas threw away the division between NLE and DAW and gave us both in one system. A totally integrated professional app where 3-point editing and 3D parent/child compositing sits on the timeline right along side surround sound mixing and live-input monitoring.
Premiere Pro with the CS3 suite delivers a level inter-app operability that goes way beyond anything we've seen before. After Effects project files directly onto the timeline of Premiere. Premiere projects straight into Encore where your DVD project can be exported direct to a Flash website.
And you simply havnt had software-only RealTime until you've driven Cineform Prospect HD with Premiere Pro. Multi-streams of 10 and 12bit 4k lossless intermediate files, real-time with effects. Quite outstanding.
Even the much maligned Avid (formerly Pinnacle) Liquid gave us GPU background rendering which still hasnt been emulated in other NLE's on the same level.
All these were truly new ideas. Ideas that pushed at what digital post-production could be. Innovations that challenged pre-concieved ideas about the post-workflow itself.
By contrast FCP6 simply gave us ProRes which is really just a poor-mans Cineform or DNxHD. Effective but without the flexibility, quality or performance of either DNxHD or Cineform.
Color is nice - it jumped the value of the FCStudio ten rungs up the ladder but this is commoditization rather than innovation. Color simply plugs a major gap in the FCStudio. FCP's color correction tools are notoriously substandard. No secondary colour correction at all. So Color delivers all you could want for corection and grading but it's still really nothing new and really nothing that After Effects didn't already offer with its own colour tools and Synthetic Aperture. Apple Color was a great addition but not a new or innovative one.
There is no doubt, no question, FCP has been, and is, reliable, dependable and proven but it hasnt been innovative and forward thinking in years. I believe this is because FCP users spend their time Raving about how good FCP is instead of being critical of its failings and driving the FCP developers to do better.
Of course this isnt to suggest that everyone in the industry (if the 'industry' can even be defined anymore) wants adventurous, bold and new all the time. In fact, arguably traditional media (broadcast in particular) wants dependable, safe, conservative more than anything else. Not unproven workflows and brash ideas untested.
If prompted I could easily mount a counter argument to everything I just wrote, as certainly you could too. But ultimately my job these days is running a film school and writing about the future of cinematic media. So in many ways its' my job to look forward and consider the future, what might be. Where as many others fighting the daily production war in the trenches have very different desires. Desires that the proven, conservative, dependable FCP delivers.
Strange however it is that the tool that built its foundation on being the brash new, adventurous, 'think different' NLE kid on the block is now praised for its safe, dependable, conservative reliability. Perhaps I miss the young punk FCP of version 1-3. The FCP that changed the way i thought about what post-production could be. That said, when i remember my former roles I certainly understand why the punk had to be shave his mohawk.
This brings us back to where we started (after somewhat of a tangent), criticism of Apple for insular protection of QT at the expense of a more open approach to formats. Your concerns are well founded and I would be remiss to not concede that despite my protestations, QT does indeed work and regardless of its proprietary nature has delivered reliability and dependability to much of the post-production world.
The problem is I want more... I want a single unified, non-proprietary file format that can be moved seamlessly between any system I choose. I want this because I want creative process to drive the software choice not the software choice to drive the creative process. The former, unfortunately is the current state of play. Every NLE is Good at the things that the developers feel are Important, and it is Not good at the things the developers feel are Unimportant. Case in point, FCP is terribly under-equiped for audio production and so the only conclusion to be arrived at is that the developers of FCP believe that either a) Audio is not important or b) that audio should be produced separate to the edit, in a separate system. But what if I, as a creative producer, do not subscribe to that point of view...? What if I wish to integrate the building of sound and vision; sound not as a following interpretive process but as a driving impetuous, to let the sound edit inform the visual edit...?
In such a case the tool is dictating how my creative process can be engaged. And because I am, to a greater or lesser degree, locked into certain formats and dont have total freedom to move between tools, my creative process is dictated by the restrictions of the tool, Im forced to work in the manner the software developers have bequeathed rather than the way my creative instincts are pointing.
There is much about this that is generalizations; of course there are transcoding processes and workflow to allow for movement between systems. But broadly speaking its not easy; indeed it's deliberately cumbersome. Apple do not want you to move in and out of their applications to other non Apple tools. It's obviously not in their best interest for you to do so.
None of this suggests that FCP/QuickTime or any other proprietary system doesn't work. If it didn't no one would use it, so evidently it works very well. Indeed as you and others here have pointed out above, there is much to be thankful in the reliability that comes form proprietary systems.
But it does point to inherent biases in the way corporate directives shapes creative processes. These biases make me uncomfortable, they make me concerned. Not for the day to day efficiency of production, but concerned for future possibilities curtailed, for the paradigm shifts that might be possible but which might be ground to glacial slowness.
Many if the ideas and perspectives I kick around here on the DigitalBasin are deliberately provocative; hoping as I do to spark debate and questions and perspectives. So sincere thanks to you for taking the time to turn this thread into exactly that.
I actually intended this response to be short. It grew of its own accord; excited as i was to be mulling these ideas. Again, many thanks. A very worthwhile few days of writing and reading and thinking.
cheers
Mike
Posted by Mike Jones on August 09, 2008 at 06:43 PM EST #
Wow, mike. That is quite a complement for my comments to have such an impact. And what a great response! Lots of meat here to dig through. This stuff expands the brain, so I'm gonna dig in. Also, I'm adding your site to my list of favorites at johnpapola.com. Get ready for a long one.
While I will certainly admit that Apple has more than it's fair share of sycophantic users, I can't agree that the pro apps group is operating in an echo-chamber of praise. I have met far too many intensely critical editors, production company techs and post gurus to consider that a fair criticism. All of us that work in this profession of content creation for a living are incredibly demanding of our tools and of Apple to improve the tools. I've personally sent heaps of feature requests and complaints Apple's way. Believe me, they get hammered like the rest. Maybe even more. Passion begets massive disappointment when things don't meet expectations.
Are there guys out there that like to play the partisan argument game and in so doing marginalize the problems with Final Cut? Sure. But as I often argue elsewhere, fanboys abound in all platform discussions.
To be a bit of a defender of Apple vs. Avid in particular, I know of nobody who thinks Avid (or Digidesign) have good support. To be blunt, the smartest Avid guys I know think the company is a bunch of arrogant jerks.
And while I admire Adobe and consider After Effects to be perhaps the greatest software ever written... I don't admire some of their more recent tactics include draconian activation, and updater that updates itself more than the software and a very aggressive pushing of reader, flash and air that seems to demand my browser be quit every time there's any update.
Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to do a bit of blog-style rebutting here, in the spirit of great debate. You clearly know more about this other apps than I do since I've been pretty much exclusively Final Cut Studio for years... but a great many of these examples you're building your argument on don't appear to be accurate.
Let me first broadly say that many of the mistakes I see in this criticism stem from your focus on Final Cut Pro itself and the exclusion of the rest of the applications in the suite as well as the pro-video-oriented improvements in the OS itself which Final Cut leverages (and are available to other devs as well... but which Adobe chooses to ignore).
Now, on the issue of innovation... I think that term is very squishy, but I don't think your indictment of Apple's recent years is quite fair. Apple's GPU-driven realtime rendering and it's use in Motion in particular is pretty spectacular. Motion, while still inferior to After Effects, is pretty much innovation from head to toe. From the realtime workflow, to the key-free behaviors for animation, that app is a downright tech laboratory. And there's other examples as well that extend from that, like the FX Plug architecture. The Core Image/Video engine that powers Motion and FXPlug is a massive area of innovation and it's not just benefiting FCS, but also leading to new competition in image editors and real time tools like the excellent Conduit compositing application/plugin.
This is crucial when considering Final Cut Studio. The innovation at the heart of this toolset from Apple is not just about commoditization/democratization of tools (though that is huge) but of a more expansive definition of the platform and workflow that is open to all users and developers. Hence Core Image and XML.
Now to the blow-by-blow:
"Vegas threw away the division between NLE and DAW and gave us both in one system. A totally integrated professional app where 3-point editing and 3D parent/child compositing sits on the timeline right along side surround sound mixing and live-input monitoring. "
Sounds very interesting for a pretty specific set of users that do it all. I'd call this and design philosophy more than a massive innovation though. Plus, the more you add into one application, the more usability compromises you inevitably incur. I personally prefer my tools to be discrete and optimized for the particular task. On the flip side, doesn't Vegas still lack multiple sequences within the same project? If not, great. If so... it's frankly usable for most professional editing. My advice in that case to Sony is: get the editing right before throwing in the kitchen sink.
"Premiere Pro with the CS3 suite delivers a level inter-app operability that goes way beyond anything we've seen before. After Effects project files directly onto the timeline of Premiere."
Hmmm... Motion project files have been able to open directly in the Final Cut Pro timeline since 1.0, well before CS3... so this is an Apple innovation that Adobe is catching up to. Plus... because of the QuickTime platform construct... Motion project files have been able to open directly into QuickTime itself AND After Effects and other QuickTime applications. Talk about amazing workflow. Many people have been using Motion as if it were and AE plugin for it's amazing particle system using this very workflow.
"And you simply havnt had software-only RealTime until you've driven Cineform Prospect HD with Premiere Pro. Multi-streams of 10 and 12bit 4k lossless intermediate files, real-time with effects. Quite outstanding."
Sounds awesome, but I can't say that I've had any longing in the realtime front with FCP cutting in 1080P for broadcast. I feel it's fair to chalk up some of this bitdepth + stream competition to a spec-sheet pissing contest. The 2k+ film workflow is another matter... Cineform does look really cool though, and I see no reason why they couldn't bring it to Final Cut along with it's other format support.
Liquid's background rendering is cool, and I believe Final Cut began to move some things like Smoothcam optical flow analysis into background processes. I get the sense that real background rendering is going to have to wait for a lower-level rewrite of the application, which is rumored to be underway.
"FCP's color correction tools are notoriously substandard. No secondary colour correction at all."
FCP's tool isn't amazing, and I prefer Colorista when working inside of the application... but it does have secondary correction. You can layer the 3way corrector using the keyer built in for secondary correction. Admittedly, there's no built in "power-windows"... but this does get back to the philosophy question. How much do you cram into the main editor. Adding Color into the suite gives you nearly unlimited correction power without bogging down final cut in massive new functionality. I expect Color to get a DVD Studio Pro 2-style overall in a revision or two.
"By contrast FCP6 simply gave us ProRes which is really just a poor-mans Cineform or DNxHD. Effective but without the flexibility, quality or performance of either DNxHD or Cineform. "
I'd like to hear why you call it "poor man's". We've switched to an all-prores workflow at Spike and absolutely love the quality for the filesizes. 10bit HD at SD bitrates is awesome with full realtime power. 1080P on a Macbook Pro is just crazy to think about, we can do it now.
As for HDV being non-standard in FCP... it's a shame if that is hampering a workflow for you, though I'd love to hear precisely how. If you're on the mac, every app should be able to read the .mov files. I think the bigger issue is that HDV is pretty horrible. It's compressed into oblivion and any workflow I can imagine should be built around getting out of working HDV as fast as possible.
"Strange however it is that the tool that built its foundation on being the brash new, adventurous, 'think different' NLE kid on the block is now praised for its safe, dependable, conservative reliability. Perhaps I miss the young punk FCP of version 1-3. The FCP that changed the way i thought about what post-production could be."
I understand the broad strokes of your discussion here, but I think you may be missing Apple's latest innovations because you aren't using the other applications in the Suite. And Let's think about what was exciting in FCP 1-3. Was it really about feature innovation? Avid was pretty mature and FCP was playing catch up on many fronts.
What made FCP revolutionary was the price for what it could do, and the architecture being built on QuickTime for all the flexibility we've already discussed. Plus, there was Apple's business decision to adhere to essentially one version with all the features at a low price vs Avid's many tiers of functionality and stairstep pricing that felt like a gouge at every step.
Premiere had only one version too, so it's not like that was a new concept. That Final Cut was so capable and yet didn't get greedy was the innovation.
So considering this, I think Apple's decision to buy and bundle Color is absolutely in line with what made Final Cut 1-3 so special and revolutionary. Seriously. And see Final Cut Server as having the same disruptive potential, once we can all get our heads around it. I went to NAB this year almost solely to see and learn Color and Final Cut Server.
Remember that Apple bought Final Cut from Macromedia (which I think was developed by former Premiere coders who were tired of Adobe not listening to their ideas).
"But it does point to inherent biases in the way corporate directives shapes creative processes. These biases make me uncomfortable, they make me concerned. Not for the day to day efficiency of production, but concerned for future possibilities curtailed, for the paradigm shifts that might be possible but which might be ground to glacial slowness. "
This is where we must go back to the ideological debate. I will say right up front that I am libertarian-leaning free market man but certainly not ideologically rigid as many can be. I absolutely believe that a free market of competition, best delivers innovation in the fastest and most sustainable way. My life experience only continues to cement this notion. It's messy and often erratic... but so is nature and evolution which I think is the ideological framework on which the market is ultimately based.
Consider the ant. Individually, they are clueless, lost little runts. Yet together, through a kind of peer-to-peer network of interaction with no central authority they build complex structures. The same goes for the peering-agreement driven internet itself. I recommend the Stanford podcast "The Future of the internet" as it really explains how totally undirected the internet was as it developed.
It's clear that you are an educator and a good one. And while you long for that perfect world as we all do, thank god you aren't lost in it. Your students are very lucky.
My great criticism of academia is that the tendency toward ideological triumphalism has a very distorting effect on the qualitative judgement of the free market. Central planning "feels" right when you think about it and draw it all out on paper much the same way that your hope for "the God Format" does. It is the utopian triumph of the mind. But these utopian dreams seem to calcify into a scorn for what actually works in the real world, which is to say free markets and companies competing for profit. Hence the pretty broad left-ward slant when it comes to the economics of most university professors. And in my humble opinion, that's just dead wrong. Excuse the blip of political economics here. But we are talking business and industry progress.
The best thing about production-oriented film school (I went to Penn State for film) was that the mechanics of making a film and it's nature as an art of compromise unlike most others seems to keep some of that utopian mindset in check. Obviously the film theory guys go way off into la la land, but that has it's place too. ;)
To linger on compromise for a moment, let me expand the ideological framework a bit and refer to what I consider one of the greatest works of compromise the world has ever seen: the US Constitution. While it's being summarily ignored at the moment, this document represents the height of what underpins this discussion. It was born of compromise and its key to success lies in the framer's understanding of reality, not utopia. Hence the separation of powers. The decentralized authority. The framers understood nature as well as human nature. Emergence in a competitive environment is the great driver of improvement for all things on earth. It's natural selection.
We're very fortunate now. Apple cracked the market wide open. Now, with Adobe gaining fast, we can really see the benefits of competition. There is a place for standards, no question. But there can never and will never be a "One Format To Rule Them All" so long as we have what we want, which is ongoing evolution. The smartest engineers on the planet aren't capable of anticipating what new ideas will come next. The formats will alway be expanding and pulling in many directions from different players who think they have the best new way to build the mousetrap.
The only real system in which a "one true format" can emerge is very similar to the political system in which socialism seems to be aggressively enacted: tyranny by a single power. Microsoft has ruled with office as the one true format because it was the only format and their format. I think we can all agree that we don't want that for our business.
So I put this forward for you to consider. Embrace the chaos. Recognize that it the engine of innovation. It's the flux capacitor in our Delorean. Don't be seduced by utopia into a condemnation of some of the forces that have delivered our best tools. The ever-changing path of progress is the only one that can keep delivering new toys for our films. I'm not saying you need to embrace everything about corporations and their tactics. Far from it. I'm just inviting you to strip away the idea that a group of people working together within a corporation is any different than a group of people working together at SMPTE or in the government or on a film.
This article for David Mammet in the Village Voice really expands on that idea in refreshing ways:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-03-11/news/why-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal/
Think Socrates. Enjoying the journey is more important than reaching the destination.
Here's to a wonderful discussion. Please feel free to continue. I'll be back! ;)
Posted by John Papola on August 10, 2008 at 02:45 PM EST #
I love it when the comments the far longer than the post. :)
The tragedy is ive run out of time for now. Monday here, back at work, snowed under with production and teaching so dont have time to get stuck into another Micro essay. But I do hope to pick back up ons oem of these ideas in future posts.
Again many thanks. Look forward to kicking the ball around again soon
Mike
Posted by Mike Jones on August 11, 2008 at 01:37 PM EST #