Holly Smokes.. Apple.

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I'm surprised no one posted this one..

Wowzers.. Apple pops out not only 1 upgrade, but several

Final Cut Pro HD - Obviously far better HD support here, I haven't
looked into it yet, but it's a free upgrade to current users making it
at version 4.5 now.

DVD Studio 3 - Here's an application who's only downfall comparing it
to Scenarist was the lack of DTS sound support.. Guess what, DTS sound
is now included, making it the king of the hill now, IMHO.

Motion - Brand new.. Didn't see this one coming but it makes since.
Looks like Apples next goal is to be After Effects out of business.
Looks just like AE, can be template driven, and supports all AE filters
too.. and only $299. kewl.

This industry sure moves fast doesn't it.

-Richard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Apple can not produce quality software, Operating systems and hardware at
the same time.
"Richard Ragon" <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote in message
news:ASVgc.2575073$iA2.297747@news.easynews.com...
> I'm surprised no one posted this one..
>
> Wowzers.. Apple pops out not only 1 upgrade, but several
>
> Final Cut Pro HD - Obviously far better HD support here, I haven't
> looked into it yet, but it's a free upgrade to current users making it
> at version 4.5 now.
>
> DVD Studio 3 - Here's an application who's only downfall comparing it
> to Scenarist was the lack of DTS sound support.. Guess what, DTS sound
> is now included, making it the king of the hill now, IMHO.
>
> Motion - Brand new.. Didn't see this one coming but it makes since.
> Looks like Apples next goal is to be After Effects out of business.
> Looks just like AE, can be template driven, and supports all AE filters
> too.. and only $299. kewl.
>
> This industry sure moves fast doesn't it.
>
> -Richard
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Your a real downer.. Kind of a "glass is half empty" type of person huh..

Obviously you have your mind already made up..Why do you even post?

-Richard


nappy wrote:
> Apple can not produce quality software, Operating systems and hardware at
> the same time.
> "Richard Ragon" <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote in message
> news:ASVgc.2575073$iA2.297747@news.easynews.com...
>
>>I'm surprised no one posted this one..
>>
>>Wowzers.. Apple pops out not only 1 upgrade, but several
>>
>>Final Cut Pro HD - Obviously far better HD support here, I haven't
>>looked into it yet, but it's a free upgrade to current users making it
>>at version 4.5 now.
>>
>>DVD Studio 3 - Here's an application who's only downfall comparing it
>>to Scenarist was the lack of DTS sound support.. Guess what, DTS sound
>>is now included, making it the king of the hill now, IMHO.
>>
>>Motion - Brand new.. Didn't see this one coming but it makes since.
>>Looks like Apples next goal is to be After Effects out of business.
>>Looks just like AE, can be template driven, and supports all AE filters
>>too.. and only $299. kewl.
>>
>>This industry sure moves fast doesn't it.
>>
>>-Richard
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:51:51 GMT, Richard Ragon
<bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote:

>Your a real downer.. Kind of a "glass is half empty" type of person huh..
>Obviously you have your mind already made up..Why do you even post?

At least he sees through the hype.

cheers

-martin-

--
filmmaker/DP/editor/filmschool techie
Sydney, Australia

"The world is on the move. Adopt, adapt, survive."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Martin Heffels wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:51:51 GMT, Richard Ragon
> <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Your a real downer.. Kind of a "glass is half empty" type of person huh..
>>Obviously you have your mind already made up..Why do you even post?
>
>
> At least he sees through the hype.

How does one know it's hype, until one has tried it? Perhaps It's
awesome, but with an attitude like that.. Like I said.. I guess the mind
of some people is already closed..

Personally I'm excited about some of the announcements made this week..
And it's not just from Apple. Vegas has what looks like a really
awesome 5.1 editor, among other things. And Adobe has some really great
looking new features in After Effects 6.5 that I can't wait to try out..

I guess some people see advancements in technology as a bad thing, and
just prefer to just drag everyone else down, as opposed to having a
positive outlook.

Good luck to you.

-Richard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Ragon" <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote in message
news:Sd_gc.13447285$Id.2237346@news.easynews.com...
> Martin Heffels wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:51:51 GMT, Richard Ragon
> > <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Your a real downer.. Kind of a "glass is half empty" type of person
huh..
> >>Obviously you have your mind already made up..Why do you even post?
> >
> >
> > At least he sees through the hype.
>
> How does one know it's hype, until one has tried it? Perhaps It's
> awesome, but with an attitude like that.. Like I said.. I guess the mind
> of some people is already closed..


No.. I really can see through the hype. If you think "I" am a downer
because I call Apple on their half finished offerings then you are missing
the point of my post.

I POST because I am one of those people who is put off by the constant hype
and when I actually use these product they fall so far short of the hype
that I feel compelled to state that fact as often as I can.

The world is not always a rosey, nice warm place. Especially if you are
using Apple products.

I rest my case.


>
> Personally I'm excited about some of the announcements made this week..
> And it's not just from Apple. Vegas has what looks like a really
> awesome 5.1 editor, among other things. And Adobe has some really great
> looking new features in After Effects 6.5 that I can't wait to try out..
>
> I guess some people see advancements in technology as a bad thing, and
> just prefer to just drag everyone else down, as opposed to having a
> positive outlook.
>
> Good luck to you.
>
> -Richard
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

nappy wrote:
> Bill.. we went over this so many times. Do your own google search and see
> how many times you have said you don't use FCP to any great extent. . For
> those of us trying to do real work with it. it stinks. I outlined a
> particular problem a few weeks ago and you had no idea what I was talking
> about. So while you are doing work with FCP that you could probably do in
> iMovie you are very happy with it. That's good. But if you've already
> admitted you don't use it as much, what is the point in your responses?

How does Bills use of FCP fit in with the fact that thousands (or more)
professionals use FCP for professional production work every day? He
simply mad a statement, and your follow up is "you don't use it".. huh?


> I am not sure what you get out of trying repeatedly in vain to disprove my
> assertions. . Again, you have stated that you don't do the same things I do
> with FCP. And I don't even USE FCP for the heavy work. Instead I use
> Combustion and AE for that. But when I do go to FCP to finish a movie or add
> FX or anything... I find it extremely unstable, terribly sluggish and very
> poorly designed. I spend most of my time watching a beachball and waiting
> for the "Preparing Video for Display" dialog to go away. On A Dual1G G4 The
> daily crash count has been fairly constant since FCP3. And FCP handles audio
> worse than any program I have EVER used. There is your evidence, Bill. Same
> stuff I have been saying all along .

Like I said.. Some people just have their minds made up without even
testing the software first... Even if you bought it, I'm guess it's
doomed no matter because you've already doomed it in your own mind, and
no matter what, it'll never be as good as you need it.

Oh well.. lost cause, no loss though.

-Richard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Ragon" <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote in message
news😛xehc.13513476$Id.2248204@news.easynews.com...
> nappy wrote:
> > Bill.. we went over this so many times. Do your own google search and
see
> > how many times you have said you don't use FCP to any great extent. .
For
> > those of us trying to do real work with it. it stinks. I outlined a
> > particular problem a few weeks ago and you had no idea what I was
talking
> > about. So while you are doing work with FCP that you could probably do
in
> > iMovie you are very happy with it. That's good. But if you've already
> > admitted you don't use it as much, what is the point in your responses?
>
> How does Bills use of FCP fit in with the fact that thousands (or more)
> professionals use FCP for professional production work every day? He
> simply mad a statement, and your follow up is "you don't use it".. huh?
>

No that wasn't my follow up.. I said HE said he doesn't use it like I do.
You can search and find the thread yourself. This has been going on for a
couple of years. And through the upgrades FCP has not improved much at all.


>
> > I am not sure what you get out of trying repeatedly in vain to disprove
my
> > assertions. . Again, you have stated that you don't do the same things I
do
> > with FCP. And I don't even USE FCP for the heavy work. Instead I use
> > Combustion and AE for that. But when I do go to FCP to finish a movie or
add
> > FX or anything... I find it extremely unstable, terribly sluggish and
very
> > poorly designed. I spend most of my time watching a beachball and
waiting
> > for the "Preparing Video for Display" dialog to go away. On A Dual1G G4
The
> > daily crash count has been fairly constant since FCP3. And FCP handles
audio
> > worse than any program I have EVER used. There is your evidence, Bill.
Same
> > stuff I have been saying all along .
>
> Like I said.. Some people just have their minds made up without even
> testing the software first... Even if you bought it, I'm guess it's
> doomed no matter because you've already doomed it in your own mind, and
> no matter what, it'll never be as good as you need it.
>
> Oh well.. lost cause, no loss though.
>

What? Richard you're talking our of your ass. I have been using FCP since V3
and I've had the same complaints all along. It is not a matter of dooming
anything in my own mind. What is wrong with you guys? I even laid out what
some of its problems are for cryin' out loud. Lemme guess. You use FCP,
sort of, like Bill and you have no complaints. GREAT.. but whenyou see apost
like mine you ought to respond with something a little more substantial than
a half-assed personal insult. I will never understand why some people are
emotionally tied to the software they use.. It is really goofy.



> -Richard
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

nappy wrote:

> I have been using FCP since V3
> and I've had the same complaints all along.

I've been using FCP since V1 and it only seems to keep getting better.

> What is wrong with you guys? I even laid out what
> some of its problems are for cryin' out loud.

All I have seen are your repeated assertions that it stinks. That is not
evidence. It's not even a description of a problem. It's just an
evaluation without any credible basis. [You *do* seem to have more
trouble with it than just about anyone else.]

FCP isn't perfect. It's very complex, and it takes some effort to learn
to use it effectively. Used properly, it is a very powerful tool.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

whew.. another poster who doesn't bother to read the threads prior to
posting.



Ed.. have you ever used any OTHER editor?



As I said to the other poster.. do your own search if you want 'evidence' I
am not going to lay it out over and over again each time I post.


"Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:JLSdnUiTu6KTRhjdRVn-jw@comcast.com...
> nappy wrote:
>
> > I have been using FCP since V3
> > and I've had the same complaints all along.
>
> I've been using FCP since V1 and it only seems to keep getting better.
>
> > What is wrong with you guys? I even laid out what
> > some of its problems are for cryin' out loud.
>
> All I have seen are your repeated assertions that it stinks. That is not
> evidence. It's not even a description of a problem. It's just an
> evaluation without any credible basis. [You *do* seem to have more
> trouble with it than just about anyone else.]
>
> FCP isn't perfect. It's very complex, and it takes some effort to learn
> to use it effectively. Used properly, it is a very powerful tool.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"nappy" <nappy@nappy.no.spam.com> wrote in message
news:ZSfhc.53338$AC5.52111@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...

[...]
>GREAT.. but whenyou see apost
> like mine you ought to respond with something a little more substantial than
> a half-assed personal insult. I will never understand why some people are
> emotionally tied to the software they use.. It is really goofy.

Ah, but this was VERY funny reading, this post from "nappy",
who is often on these video NGs doing EXACTLY what he
is accusing others of doing when it comes to ANY negative
comments about Canon camcorders (or almost any positive
comments about Sony camcorders...;-). Without presenting
any evidence at all in support of his views, he resorts immediately
to personal attacks! I have never seen anyone so persistently
attached to his favorite camcorder brand and model as "nappy"
(and this is really saying something given that of all the brands
available, only Canon owners appear to have this irrational
emotional attachment to their marque - and they often defend
it vociferously, "right or wrong", regardless of any evidence
presented).
Thanks, "nappy" (or "yak", "gg", "dooda", or any other
pseudonym you have used...), for posting something really
funny! ;-)
--
David Ruether
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"nappy" <nappy@nappy.no.spam.com> wrote:

> Apple can not produce quality software, Operating systems and hardware at
> the same time.

you're living in the 90's... last time I checked, it's 2004... apple is
building stellar software AND hardware... they are becoming the center
of all video production, broadcasting is next, hint hint

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:umwhc.24700$635.21908@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
>
>
>
> "nappy" <nappy@nappy.no.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:ZSfhc.53338$AC5.52111@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
> [...]
> >GREAT.. but whenyou see apost
> > like mine you ought to respond with something a little more substantial
than
> > a half-assed personal insult. I will never understand why some people
are
> > emotionally tied to the software they use.. It is really goofy.
>
> Ah, but this was VERY funny reading, this post from "nappy",
> who is often on these video NGs doing EXACTLY what he
> is accusing others of doing when it comes to ANY negative
> comments about Canon camcorders (or almost any positive
> comments about Sony camcorders...;-). Without presenting
> any evidence at all in support of his views, he resorts immediately
> to personal attacks! I have never seen anyone so persistently
> attached to his favorite camcorder brand and model as "nappy"
> (and this is really saying something given that of all the brands
> available, only Canon owners appear to have this irrational
> emotional attachment to their marque - and they often defend
> it vociferously, "right or wrong", regardless of any evidence
> presented).
> Thanks, "nappy" (or "yak", "gg", "dooda", or any other
> pseudonym you have used...), for posting something really
> funny! ;-)
> --
> David Ruether
> rpn1@cornell.edu
> http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
>
>

Ah Yes.. David Reuther the self proclaimed camera reviewer . You attribute a
bit too much to the fact that I have posted from various computers and
sometimes do not change the name of the account. If I wanted to 'hide' there
are much better ways of doing it. <sheesh> You guys always revert to the
fact that I am not stupid enough to use my real name here when you have no
argument.

I'll say this again for you David. Since you seem to have so much trouble
understanding it.

I shoot with eveything from DV to 35 to HD. !Read it over and over until you
get it. Take your time. .

I said that about a year ago but I trust you are so busy listening to the
voices in your head that you can't understand much of what you read. You are
the oldest spoiled brat I know.

I respond to your posts touting Sony over just about anything because one
trip to your site will show people that you are a rank amatuer and have no
place giving people advice on which cameras to purchase.

That's a little different than touting Canon cameras.. which , if you look
at my posts, I have rarely ever done. What I DO say is that I have seen
excellent work done on Indy films with Canon cameras. That's the EVIDENCE
you are seeking. So when you tell people it is the last choice for you they
ought to look at your work to see that your advice is irrelevant. It would
not matter which samera you use.

I don't bother to give advice on which cameras to use.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"nappy" <nappy@nappy.no.spam.com> wrote in message
news:_1Qhc.25146$Qm7.19797@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:umwhc.24700$635.21908@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> > "nappy" <nappy@nappy.no.spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:ZSfhc.53338$AC5.52111@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...

> > [...]
> > >GREAT.. but whenyou see apost
> > > like mine you ought to respond with something a little more substantial
> than
> > > a half-assed personal insult. I will never understand why some people
> are
> > > emotionally tied to the software they use.. It is really goofy.

> > Ah, but this was VERY funny reading, this post from "nappy",
> > who is often on these video NGs doing EXACTLY what he
> > is accusing others of doing when it comes to ANY negative
> > comments about Canon camcorders (or almost any positive
> > comments about Sony camcorders...;-). Without presenting
> > any evidence at all in support of his views, he resorts immediately
> > to personal attacks! I have never seen anyone so persistently
> > attached to his favorite camcorder brand and model as "nappy"
> > (and this is really saying something given that of all the brands
> > available, only Canon owners appear to have this irrational
> > emotional attachment to their marque - and they often defend
> > it vociferously, "right or wrong", regardless of any evidence
> > presented).
> > Thanks, "nappy" (or "yak", "gg", "dooda", or any other
> > pseudonym you have used...), for posting something really
> > funny! ;-)
> > --
> > David Ruether

> [....] What I DO say is that I have seen
> excellent work done on Indy films with Canon cameras. That's the EVIDENCE
> you are seeking. So when you tell people it is the last choice for you they
> ought to look at your work to see that your advice is irrelevant. It would
> not matter which samera you use.

Ah, I was complimenting you on your having said something so
funny - good laughs are highly prized things...! ;-) As for your
statement above, it is a lot like saying a beater '58 Buick got you
to the store adequately (without comparing it with anything else...).
An '04 Porche may have gotten you there also, but with much more
fun in the process, and certainly with technically better performance...;-).
BTW, I have a very long history in imaging (with work in several rather
well-known museum collections...), and I have an interest in video
imaging - and, I *do* compare image-quality of camcorders, unlike
some who tout the virtues of the XL-1 (or any other camera) without
any reference to how it performs relative to others. Without direct
comparisons, under a variety of conditions, claims of adequacy for a
particular camera may be interesting, but less interesting than knowing
which camera is generally better for most purposes, and in knowing
in what ways each camera is particularly good or poor compared with
others. That is what I provide, unlike you - who hides behind aliases,
not willing to be identified with your own statements...;-)
--
David Ruether
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

PS.. Richard.. It is spelled "Holy".
"Richard Ragon" <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote in message
news😛xehc.13513476$Id.2248204@news.easynews.com...
> nappy wrote:
> > Bill.. we went over this so many times. Do your own google search and
see
> > how many times you have said you don't use FCP to any great extent. .
For
> > those of us trying to do real work with it. it stinks. I outlined a
> > particular problem a few weeks ago and you had no idea what I was
talking
> > about. So while you are doing work with FCP that you could probably do
in
> > iMovie you are very happy with it. That's good. But if you've already
> > admitted you don't use it as much, what is the point in your responses?
>
> How does Bills use of FCP fit in with the fact that thousands (or more)
> professionals use FCP for professional production work every day? He
> simply mad a statement, and your follow up is "you don't use it".. huh?
>
>
> > I am not sure what you get out of trying repeatedly in vain to disprove
my
> > assertions. . Again, you have stated that you don't do the same things I
do
> > with FCP. And I don't even USE FCP for the heavy work. Instead I use
> > Combustion and AE for that. But when I do go to FCP to finish a movie or
add
> > FX or anything... I find it extremely unstable, terribly sluggish and
very
> > poorly designed. I spend most of my time watching a beachball and
waiting
> > for the "Preparing Video for Display" dialog to go away. On A Dual1G G4
The
> > daily crash count has been fairly constant since FCP3. And FCP handles
audio
> > worse than any program I have EVER used. There is your evidence, Bill.
Same
> > stuff I have been saying all along .
>
> Like I said.. Some people just have their minds made up without even
> testing the software first... Even if you bought it, I'm guess it's
> doomed no matter because you've already doomed it in your own mind, and
> no matter what, it'll never be as good as you need it.
>
> Oh well.. lost cause, no loss though.
>
> -Richard
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message
news😛1Uhc.13020$eK3.1241@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
>
>
>
> "nappy" <nappy@nappy.no.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:_1Qhc.25146$Qm7.19797@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> > "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message
> > news:umwhc.24700$635.21908@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> > > "nappy" <nappy@nappy.no.spam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ZSfhc.53338$AC5.52111@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > > [...]
> > > >GREAT.. but whenyou see apost
> > > > like mine you ought to respond with something a little more
substantial
> > than
> > > > a half-assed personal insult. I will never understand why some
people
> > are
> > > > emotionally tied to the software they use.. It is really goofy.
>
> > > Ah, but this was VERY funny reading, this post from "nappy",
> > > who is often on these video NGs doing EXACTLY what he
> > > is accusing others of doing when it comes to ANY negative
> > > comments about Canon camcorders (or almost any positive
> > > comments about Sony camcorders...;-). Without presenting
> > > any evidence at all in support of his views, he resorts immediately
> > > to personal attacks! I have never seen anyone so persistently
> > > attached to his favorite camcorder brand and model as "nappy"
> > > (and this is really saying something given that of all the brands
> > > available, only Canon owners appear to have this irrational
> > > emotional attachment to their marque - and they often defend
> > > it vociferously, "right or wrong", regardless of any evidence
> > > presented).
> > > Thanks, "nappy" (or "yak", "gg", "dooda", or any other
> > > pseudonym you have used...), for posting something really
> > > funny! ;-)
> > > --
> > > David Ruether
>
> > [....] What I DO say is that I have seen
> > excellent work done on Indy films with Canon cameras. That's the
EVIDENCE
> > you are seeking. So when you tell people it is the last choice for you
they
> > ought to look at your work to see that your advice is irrelevant. It
would
> > not matter which samera you use.
>
> Ah, I was complimenting you on your having said something so
> funny - good laughs are highly prized things...! ;-) As for your
> statement above, it is a lot like saying a beater '58 Buick got you
> to the store adequately (without comparing it with anything else...).
> An '04 Porche may have gotten you there also, but with much more
> fun in the process, and certainly with technically better
performance...;-).


That is a silly analogy. If all you need to do is go to the store then a
Porsche is overkill when the 58 would get you there.
Are you saying the difference between the cameras we're talking about is the
same as a 58 Buick and a Porsche? I didn't think so.
Dumb point. I haven't yet seen you tell anyone to go get a Sony 900 camera
to shoot their weddings with.


1
> BTW, I have a very long history in imaging (with work in several rather
> well-known museum collections...), and I have an interest in video
> imaging - and, I *do* compare image-quality of camcorders, unlike
> some who tout the virtues of the XL-1 (or any other camera) without
> any reference to how it performs relative to others. Without direct
> comparisons, under a variety of conditions, claims of adequacy for a
> particular camera may be interesting, but less interesting than knowing
> which camera is generally better for most purposes, and in knowing
> in what ways each camera is particularly good or poor compared with
> others. That is what I provide, unlike you - who hides behind aliases,
> not willing to be identified with your own statements...;-)


imy statements do not need any identification David. you either agree with
them or you do not. I don't give advice on which cameras to buy. I do ,
however, repeatedly say that specs alone are irrelevant. Especially when
there are so many great projects being shot with all kinds of cameras. It
looks to me like you are concentrating on specs without any thought to real
use of the cameras.

Get off it already. If you really HAVE to know who I am to take me seriously
then why in the hell do you even concern yourself. ?

Simple: do not reply or join in any threads I start. It is your choice. I
could not care less.

> --
> David Ruether
> rpn1@cornell.edu
> http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
>
>
>