Re: [CGUYS] CNET News.com: Final Cut Pro the Apple of Oscar's eye - CNET News
On Mar 7, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Rev. Stewart A. Marshall wrote: Many filmmakers at Sunday's Academy Awards used Apple's Final Cut Studio to edit their movies. Tom will like this story. And Adobe will be pissed off. Apple's FCP entered the market late and quickly shoved all the incumbents off into insignificance. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] CNET News.com: Final Cut Pro the Apple of Oscar's eye - CNET News
The only other one mentioned was Avid. Stewart At 07:19 PM 3/7/2010, you wrote: On Mar 7, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Rev. Stewart A. Marshall wrote: Many filmmakers at Sunday's Academy Awards used Apple's Final Cut Studio to edit their movies. Tom will like this story. And Adobe will be pissed off. Apple's FCP entered the market late and quickly shoved all the incumbents off into insignificance. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] CNET News.com: Final Cut Pro the Apple of Oscar's eye - CNET News
What a laugh. The story reads like an ad for FC Studio, not surprising since it's in Cnet's Apple section. But in fact what it says is that most of the nominees did *not* use FCP. On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 8:19 PM, tjpa wrote: > And Adobe will be pissed off. Apple's FCP entered the market late and > quickly shoved all the incumbents off into insignificance. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] CNET News.com: Final Cut Pro the Apple of Oscar's eye - CNET News
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Tony B wrote: > What a laugh. The story reads like an ad for FC Studio, not surprising > since it's in Cnet's Apple section. But in fact what it says is that > most of the nominees did *not* use FCP. What other computer section would an article about an Apple product be? Where are you seeing that most of the nominees did not use Final Cut? Here is what I see, and I quote from the article at the one and only point where there is any mention of nominees: "In fact, 9 out of 10 of this year's nominees in the "Documentary Feature" and "Documentary Short" categories used Final Cut Studio to make their films." Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] CNET News.com: Final Cut Pro the Apple of Oscar's eye - CNET News
Right. That's 9 out of how many movies nominated? Or eligible for nomination? I'm not going to count them all, but I'll just remind you that Documentaries are only a small part of the Oscars. On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:40 PM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Tony B wrote: > >> What a laugh. The story reads like an ad for FC Studio, not surprising >> since it's in Cnet's Apple section. But in fact what it says is that >> most of the nominees did *not* use FCP. > > What other computer section would an article about an Apple product be? > > Where are you seeing that most of the nominees did not use Final > Cut? Here is what I see, and I quote from the article at the one and > only point where there is any mention of nominees: > > "In fact, 9 out of 10 of this year's nominees in the "Documentary > Feature" and "Documentary Short" categories used Final Cut Studio to > make their films." * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] CNET News.com: Final Cut Pro the Apple of Oscar's eye - CNET News
I think the key is that it did say. "Final Cut Pro has almost 50 percent market share in the nonlinear editor space, outperforming competitors like Avid." Many of the big studios and editors may not use it, instead using dedicated expensive editing suites. (They were pretty specific to state non linear) It is pretty powerful. A good product. Stewart At 09:40 PM 3/7/2010, you wrote: What other computer section would an article about an Apple product be? Where are you seeing that most of the nominees did not use Final Cut? Here is what I see, and I quote from the article at the one and only point where there is any mention of nominees: "In fact, 9 out of 10 of this year's nominees in the "Documentary Feature" and "Documentary Short" categories used Final Cut Studio to make their films." Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] CNET News.com: Final Cut Pro the Apple of Oscar's eye - CNET News
That's one area of film making. * Of course, Final Cut Pro isn't the only product available for filmmakers, but it is the most popular now. According to market research firm SCRI International, Final Cut Pro has almost 50 percent market share in the nonlinear editor space, outperforming competitors like Avid. * Later in the article that was written. Just sub 50% share is pretty good. Avid is the other serious player in the field, not Adobe. Wiki claims that FCP only has about 20% when it comes to the pros in the editors guild...you know the guys with A.C.E at the end of their names when you go see a flick. The other 80% is Avid or other. On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 8:40 PM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Tony B wrote: > > > What a laugh. The story reads like an ad for FC Studio, not surprising > > since it's in Cnet's Apple section. But in fact what it says is that > > most of the nominees did *not* use FCP. > > What other computer section would an article about an Apple product be? > > Where are you seeing that most of the nominees did not use Final > Cut? Here is what I see, and I quote from the article at the one and > only point where there is any mention of nominees: > > "In fact, 9 out of 10 of this year's nominees in the "Documentary > Feature" and "Documentary Short" categories used Final Cut Studio to > make their films." > > Steve > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] CNET News.com: Final Cut Pro the Apple of Oscar's eye - CNET News
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Tony B wrote: > Right. That's 9 out of how many movies nominated? Or eligible for > nomination? I'm not going to count them all, but I'll just remind you > that Documentaries are only a small part of the Oscars. The article focused solely on those 10 nominations for documentaries. The article, as far as I could see, made no mention of what software was used in any of the other films in other categories. It is quite probable that the big movie studios use software that has been specifically written for their purposes, and is not "off the shelf" stuff as is Final Cut. To compare Final Cut or other "off the shelf" software with customized editing software that can cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars would be silly and is not what the article was doing. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] CNET News.com: Final Cut Pro the Apple of Oscar's eye - CNET News
Exactly. This article mentioned that they did this on a budget of less than 15K for computer, hardware, and software. Professional studios used dedicated workstations and computers costing much more money. (add 000s to whatever figure) They are dedicated machines and specialized software. You have to hand it to Apple for developing and marketing FCP. It has made its mark. By the way it is these guys who start off making small films that will someday end up making large films. Stewart At 10:43 PM 3/7/2010, you wrote: On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Tony B wrote: > Right. That's 9 out of how many movies nominated? Or eligible for > nomination? I'm not going to count them all, but I'll just remind you > that Documentaries are only a small part of the Oscars. The article focused solely on those 10 nominations for documentaries. The article, as far as I could see, made no mention of what software was used in any of the other films in other categories. It is quite probable that the big movie studios use software that has been specifically written for their purposes, and is not "off the shelf" stuff as is Final Cut. To compare Final Cut or other "off the shelf" software with customized editing software that can cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars would be silly and is not what the article was doing. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] CNET News.com: Final Cut Pro the Apple of Oscar's eye - CNET News
Final Cut is scalable and has been used in feature films in addition to small scale docs and ads. Michael Moser From: "Rev. Stewart Marshall" Date: March 8, 2010 12:02:28 AM EST Subject: Re: CNET News.com: Final Cut Pro the Apple of Oscar's eye - CNET News Exactly. This article mentioned that they did this on a budget of less than 15K for computer, hardware, and software. Professional studios used dedicated workstations and computers costing much more money. (add 000s to whatever figure) They are dedicated machines and specialized software. You have to hand it to Apple for developing and marketing FCP. It has made its mark. By the way it is these guys who start off making small films that will someday end up making large films. Stewart At 10:43 PM 3/7/2010, you wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Tony B wrote: > > > Right. That's 9 out of how many movies nominated? Or eligible for > > nomination? I'm not going to count them all, but I'll just remind you > > that Documentaries are only a small part of the Oscars. > > The article focused solely on those 10 nominations for > documentaries. The article, as far as I could see, made no mention of > what software was used in any of the other films in other categories. > It is quite probable that the big movie studios use software that has > been specifically written for their purposes, and is not "off the > shelf" stuff as is Final Cut. To compare Final Cut or other "off the > shelf" software with customized editing software that can cost tens or > even hundreds of thousands of dollars would be silly and is not what > the article was doing. > > Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] CNET News.com: Final Cut Pro the Apple of Oscar's eye - CNET News
Yes I have seen the tag lines in a number of movies. However they have not made the inroads with those as they have with the small scale movie developer. Stewart At 12:31 PM 3/8/2010, you wrote: Final Cut is scalable and has been used in feature films in addition to small scale docs and ads. Michael Moser From: "Rev. Stewart Marshall" Date: March 8, 2010 12:02:28 AM EST Subject: Re: CNET News.com: Final Cut Pro the Apple of Oscar's eye - CNET News Exactly. This article mentioned that they did this on a budget of less than 15K for computer, hardware, and software. Professional studios used dedicated workstations and computers costing much more money. (add 000s to whatever figure) They are dedicated machines and specialized software. You have to hand it to Apple for developing and marketing FCP. It has made its mark. By the way it is these guys who start off making small films that will someday end up making large films. Stewart At 10:43 PM 3/7/2010, you wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Tony B wrote: > > > Right. That's 9 out of how many movies nominated? Or eligible for > > nomination? I'm not going to count them all, but I'll just remind you > > that Documentaries are only a small part of the Oscars. > > The article focused solely on those 10 nominations for > documentaries. The article, as far as I could see, made no mention of > what software was used in any of the other films in other categories. > It is quite probable that the big movie studios use software that has > been specifically written for their purposes, and is not "off the > shelf" stuff as is Final Cut. To compare Final Cut or other "off the > shelf" software with customized editing software that can cost tens or > even hundreds of thousands of dollars would be silly and is not what > the article was doing. > > Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] CNET News.com: Final Cut Pro the Apple of Oscar's eye - CNET News
This reminds me of the stories surrounding Red cameras, making products that are better and substantially cheaper and pissing off the companies that have been doing the products for years making buckets of cash and not innovating much. On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Rev. Stewart Marshall < popoz...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Yes I have seen the tag lines in a number of movies. > > However they have not made the inroads with those as they have with the > small scale movie developer. > > Stewart > > > At 12:31 PM 3/8/2010, you wrote: > >> Final Cut is scalable and has been used in feature films in addition to >> small scale docs and ads. >> Michael Moser >> >> >> >> >> >> From: "Rev. Stewart Marshall" >> Date: March 8, 2010 12:02:28 AM EST >> Subject: Re: CNET News.com: Final Cut Pro the Apple of Oscar's eye - CNET >> News >> >> >> Exactly. >> >> This article mentioned that they did this on a budget of less than 15K for >> computer, hardware, and software. >> >> Professional studios used dedicated workstations and computers costing >> much more money. (add 000s to whatever figure) >> >> They are dedicated machines and specialized software. >> >> You have to hand it to Apple for developing and marketing FCP. It has >> made its mark. >> >> By the way it is these guys who start off making small films that will >> someday end up making large films. >> >> Stewart >> >> >> At 10:43 PM 3/7/2010, you wrote: >> > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Tony B wrote: >> > >> > > Right. That's 9 out of how many movies nominated? Or eligible for >> > > nomination? I'm not going to count them all, but I'll just remind you >> > > that Documentaries are only a small part of the Oscars. >> > >> > The article focused solely on those 10 nominations for >> > documentaries. The article, as far as I could see, made no mention of >> > what software was used in any of the other films in other categories. >> > It is quite probable that the big movie studios use software that has >> > been specifically written for their purposes, and is not "off the >> > shelf" stuff as is Final Cut. To compare Final Cut or other "off the >> > shelf" software with customized editing software that can cost tens or >> > even hundreds of thousands of dollars would be silly and is not what >> > the article was doing. >> > >> > Steve >> >> >> >> * >> ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** >> ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** >> * >> > > Rev. Stewart A. Marshall > mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net > Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org > Ozark, AL SL 82 > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] CNET News.com: Final Cut Pro the Apple of Oscar's eye - CNET News
Well they seem to have a winner here with FCP. It will not revolutionize the industry, but it sure is making a dent. Enabling budding producers to make movies that will get noticed. Stewart At 01:02 PM 3/8/2010, you wrote: This reminds me of the stories surrounding Red cameras, making products that are better and substantially cheaper and pissing off the companies that have been doing the products for years making buckets of cash and not innovating much. On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Rev. Stewart Marshall < popoz...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Yes I have seen the tag lines in a number of movies. > > However they have not made the inroads with those as they have with the > small scale movie developer. > > Stewart > > > At 12:31 PM 3/8/2010, you wrote: > >> Final Cut is scalable and has been used in feature films in addition to >> small scale docs and ads. >> Michael Moser >> >> >> >> >> >> From: "Rev. Stewart Marshall" >> Date: March 8, 2010 12:02:28 AM EST >> Subject: Re: CNET News.com: Final Cut Pro the Apple of Oscar's eye - CNET >> News >> >> >> Exactly. >> >> This article mentioned that they did this on a budget of less than 15K for >> computer, hardware, and software. >> >> Professional studios used dedicated workstations and computers costing >> much more money. (add 000s to whatever figure) >> >> They are dedicated machines and specialized software. >> >> You have to hand it to Apple for developing and marketing FCP. It has >> made its mark. >> >> By the way it is these guys who start off making small films that will >> someday end up making large films. >> >> Stewart >> >> >> At 10:43 PM 3/7/2010, you wrote: >> > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Tony B wrote: >> > >> > > Right. That's 9 out of how many movies nominated? Or eligible for >> > > nomination? I'm not going to count them all, but I'll just remind you >> > > that Documentaries are only a small part of the Oscars. >> > >> > The article focused solely on those 10 nominations for >> > documentaries. The article, as far as I could see, made no mention of >> > what software was used in any of the other films in other categories. >> > It is quite probable that the big movie studios use software that has >> > been specifically written for their purposes, and is not "off the >> > shelf" stuff as is Final Cut. To compare Final Cut or other "off the >> > shelf" software with customized editing software that can cost tens or >> > even hundreds of thousands of dollars would be silly and is not what >> > the article was doing. >> > >> > Steve >> >> >> >> * >> ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** >> ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** >> * >> > > Rev. Stewart A. Marshall > mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net > Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org > Ozark, AL SL 82 > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
