MovieCutter
Feb 26, 12:06 PM
Still under construction:
1x40 Samsung LED TV
1x24" LED ACD
1x27" LED ACD
1x30" ACD
3.2Ghz OctoCore Mac Pro
Quad i7 2.3Ghz MBP 17" Antiglare
1xpain in the ass yellow labrador...
1x40 Samsung LED TV
1x24" LED ACD
1x27" LED ACD
1x30" ACD
3.2Ghz OctoCore Mac Pro
Quad i7 2.3Ghz MBP 17" Antiglare
1xpain in the ass yellow labrador...
Huntn
Mar 19, 04:37 PM
Would you rather have the Libyan people (who have called for help!) slaughtered by Gaddafi?
Historical observation: The Iraqi people never asked for US help, but there we were.
As I've said we need to finish existing world combat projects before starting new ones. Or is it like Bush/Cheney said, "who gives a damn about debt?"- just the average citizens who will lose their pensions, health care, I suppose...
Historical observation: The Iraqi people never asked for US help, but there we were.
As I've said we need to finish existing world combat projects before starting new ones. Or is it like Bush/Cheney said, "who gives a damn about debt?"- just the average citizens who will lose their pensions, health care, I suppose...
adroit
Nov 15, 11:25 AM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
This is true, but there are still many many ways to optimize the multi-core processor that's not currently being use.
For example, I am waiting for a program to compile right now. Although I have a dual core on my computer, the compiler only compile one file at a time and usually takes about 10 min to do a full compile . If I have an 8 core computer with a multi-threaded compiler then I can cut the total time to jsut over a min + couple of seconds for linking time.
I think the main problem with muti-threading program is that it is difficult to implement, especially for coders who only knows high-level languages. Muti-threading in low-level program such as C is not easy but at least it is straight-forward. But trying to muti-thread high-level language such as VB or C# can get you into a big headace since everything is abstracted from the programmer. To do that, you need to get into unsafe code and call a bunch of DLLs, and it's easy to get memory leaks. Basically it can start to get very complicated, very quickly.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
This is true, but there are still many many ways to optimize the multi-core processor that's not currently being use.
For example, I am waiting for a program to compile right now. Although I have a dual core on my computer, the compiler only compile one file at a time and usually takes about 10 min to do a full compile . If I have an 8 core computer with a multi-threaded compiler then I can cut the total time to jsut over a min + couple of seconds for linking time.
I think the main problem with muti-threading program is that it is difficult to implement, especially for coders who only knows high-level languages. Muti-threading in low-level program such as C is not easy but at least it is straight-forward. But trying to muti-thread high-level language such as VB or C# can get you into a big headace since everything is abstracted from the programmer. To do that, you need to get into unsafe code and call a bunch of DLLs, and it's easy to get memory leaks. Basically it can start to get very complicated, very quickly.
lordonuthin
Feb 10, 04:47 PM
On a side note, I have reached #977 overall with 6.4 mio units! I didn't think it was possible before the bigadv units...
Speaking of bigadv units, I haven't gotten any in the last 2 or 3 days, just regular units on my mac pro?
Speaking of bigadv units, I haven't gotten any in the last 2 or 3 days, just regular units on my mac pro?
Rodimus Prime
Apr 10, 10:56 AM
I definitely think driving a manual makes me a safer, more attentive driver.
I'm against crap that makes people lazy like adaptive cruise control, auto headlights and auto wipers and stuff like that, I suppose an automatic can fall in there too. That stuff makes drivers lazy and inattentive because they don't have to concentrate on the road.
The amount of times I see people who do not turn on their head lights at night makes me glad that a lot of cars have automatic headlights.
Way to many people refuse to turn on their headlights until they need them to to light up the road. They do not understand the fact that headlights also make a hell of a lot easier for other drivers to SEE YOU. Automatic headlights solve that issue.
As for adabptive cruise control I will admit I want that because on long drives having to mess with the cruise control settings gets annoying that or if I am following someone on long distance road trips it is hard to use the cruise unless you are the lead car.
As for me I drive a Manual but I also know manuals are a dieing bread as modern Automatics have gotten to the point they remove almost all the advantages manuals had. They can and often times do get better fuel economy due to the fact in city driving they have a computer that can shift exactly at the best point for the given power demand. Something no human can match and then at cruising speed the tranny and the engine are physically lock together just like in a manual so that advantage is gone. Hell they are not putting clutches in automatics that the car controls farther killing any plus the manuals had left.
I'm against crap that makes people lazy like adaptive cruise control, auto headlights and auto wipers and stuff like that, I suppose an automatic can fall in there too. That stuff makes drivers lazy and inattentive because they don't have to concentrate on the road.
The amount of times I see people who do not turn on their head lights at night makes me glad that a lot of cars have automatic headlights.
Way to many people refuse to turn on their headlights until they need them to to light up the road. They do not understand the fact that headlights also make a hell of a lot easier for other drivers to SEE YOU. Automatic headlights solve that issue.
As for adabptive cruise control I will admit I want that because on long drives having to mess with the cruise control settings gets annoying that or if I am following someone on long distance road trips it is hard to use the cruise unless you are the lead car.
As for me I drive a Manual but I also know manuals are a dieing bread as modern Automatics have gotten to the point they remove almost all the advantages manuals had. They can and often times do get better fuel economy due to the fact in city driving they have a computer that can shift exactly at the best point for the given power demand. Something no human can match and then at cruising speed the tranny and the engine are physically lock together just like in a manual so that advantage is gone. Hell they are not putting clutches in automatics that the car controls farther killing any plus the manuals had left.
chinesechikn
Mar 26, 06:18 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
The Future of video games?
In the future, your controller will cost �400, require a 10ft HDMI cable, a �25 adapter, and have the graphics of a PS2.
Yeah, and you can unplug it, put it in your bag, play it on the train, surf the web, check your email, edit your movie ...bit more than a $400 controller
The Future of video games?
In the future, your controller will cost �400, require a 10ft HDMI cable, a �25 adapter, and have the graphics of a PS2.
Yeah, and you can unplug it, put it in your bag, play it on the train, surf the web, check your email, edit your movie ...bit more than a $400 controller
moondog190
Feb 25, 07:52 AM
272787
left to right:
20" Apple Cinema Display, 1st Gen. 16gb iPod Touch, Late 2008 MacBook Pro on top of Griffin iStand controlled by an Apple wireless keyboard and Magic mouse, 1TB Seagate external HDD, 32gb Ipad wifi only, 21" Samsung display, 2cd Gen. TV, Razer Lycosa keyboard and Razer Death Adder mouse which controls a Windows XP box i built for my job(under the desk). You can barly see it but there is also a Power PC Mac Mini on top of the Windows machince which acts as a FTP server.
left to right:
20" Apple Cinema Display, 1st Gen. 16gb iPod Touch, Late 2008 MacBook Pro on top of Griffin iStand controlled by an Apple wireless keyboard and Magic mouse, 1TB Seagate external HDD, 32gb Ipad wifi only, 21" Samsung display, 2cd Gen. TV, Razer Lycosa keyboard and Razer Death Adder mouse which controls a Windows XP box i built for my job(under the desk). You can barly see it but there is also a Power PC Mac Mini on top of the Windows machince which acts as a FTP server.
marksman
Mar 26, 04:18 PM
Hardcore gaming will never change to the extent it doesn't need a controller and as such the market isn't going to change. Sure I can't wait until I play starcraft or the like on an ipad, but I won't be ditching any of my consoles.
You clearly lack any sort of vision. You couldn't be more wrong about the future of gaming.
You clearly lack any sort of vision. You couldn't be more wrong about the future of gaming.
freeny
Jul 19, 04:37 PM
stocks up 7.45% in after hours.....:)
elgruga
Sep 7, 01:41 AM
Reasoning goes like this:
Music costs a small amount to make - can be as low as $10k for an album.
Sell a bunch and make some profit.
Movies cost upwards of $50 million to make, often $100mil or more, so you got to rent them and sell them and do whatever you can to get that cash back.
And its got to go out the door at $25 if you are buying.
Thing is, if Apple want me to buy a movie for $15, I can rent it for $5 at the store.....and copy it if I want.
Yeah, I know thats against the law but a LOT of people do it, and anyway, if you d/l from Apple, where are you going to keep them all?
250 gig drive will hold about 30 movies. Thats not a lot of movies, and most people dont have 250 drives yet.....
Music costs a small amount to make - can be as low as $10k for an album.
Sell a bunch and make some profit.
Movies cost upwards of $50 million to make, often $100mil or more, so you got to rent them and sell them and do whatever you can to get that cash back.
And its got to go out the door at $25 if you are buying.
Thing is, if Apple want me to buy a movie for $15, I can rent it for $5 at the store.....and copy it if I want.
Yeah, I know thats against the law but a LOT of people do it, and anyway, if you d/l from Apple, where are you going to keep them all?
250 gig drive will hold about 30 movies. Thats not a lot of movies, and most people dont have 250 drives yet.....
kalsta
Apr 3, 05:06 AM
A bit schmaltzy to be sure, but much, much better than the recent 'you don't have an iPhone' ads. This one is positive, and tries to get to the heart of Apple's design philosophy. Notice how the device itself is hardly even seen � just subtle hints of its outline. All the focus is on the display's content and the fingers interacting with it. It's the principle of 'less is more', or minimalist design � approaching the ideal of a user interface that provides the illusion of direct manipulation of virtual objects as much as possible, without getting in your way.
bbeagle
Apr 2, 09:48 PM
have one but that commercial makes me want to puke. Once you use one and realize it's limitations, it's not so magical. It's a fun consumption device which you can get some work done on, but without real multitasking, it's lack of real technology actually hinders and isn't so magical.
I think what you don't realize is that for people who love the iPad either:
a) They don't need something more powerful, or
b) They have other devices (laptops, pcs) that do what other things they want to do.
I fit in camp B. I use my iPad for web surfing, reading, sharing pictures, while listening to Pandora. Could I use my laptop for this? Sure I could - Yes. But I enjoy using my iPad for these types of tasks. It's more comfortable using for these tasks, and more enjoyable.
Think about this for a second. Why do you have a toaster? Can't you toast bread in your oven by putting it on broil? A toaster has so few features compared to an oven. What's the use of a toaster? This points out the reasons for an iPad. My 'toaster' isn't my only cooking device in my house, but it complements my stove, just like my iPad complements my laptop.
I think what you don't realize is that for people who love the iPad either:
a) They don't need something more powerful, or
b) They have other devices (laptops, pcs) that do what other things they want to do.
I fit in camp B. I use my iPad for web surfing, reading, sharing pictures, while listening to Pandora. Could I use my laptop for this? Sure I could - Yes. But I enjoy using my iPad for these types of tasks. It's more comfortable using for these tasks, and more enjoyable.
Think about this for a second. Why do you have a toaster? Can't you toast bread in your oven by putting it on broil? A toaster has so few features compared to an oven. What's the use of a toaster? This points out the reasons for an iPad. My 'toaster' isn't my only cooking device in my house, but it complements my stove, just like my iPad complements my laptop.
Nmx-
Apr 1, 12:56 PM
No, I made sure that it wasn't indexing before i checked.
MacRumorUser
Mar 24, 02:00 PM
If Apple do move to supporting off the shelf ATI cards, what are we betting that it will require a revised 2011 Mac Pro ;)
knightlie
Jun 23, 03:21 AM
The Magic Trackpad � http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/07/apples-magic-trackpad-or-magic-slate-revealed/ � would allow for multi-touch on desktops, enabling many iOS applications to be used on a desktop computer (and obviously laptops could do the same thing with their trackpads).
Not necessarily. iOS apps need to be touched directly, without a pointer acting as intermediary, whereas a touch/track pad is used to control a pointer on the screen.
Touch screen and touch pad do not have to perform the same function. To enable iOS apps, the Magic Touchpad would need a screen on it, which would turn it into... an iPad.
Not necessarily. iOS apps need to be touched directly, without a pointer acting as intermediary, whereas a touch/track pad is used to control a pointer on the screen.
Touch screen and touch pad do not have to perform the same function. To enable iOS apps, the Magic Touchpad would need a screen on it, which would turn it into... an iPad.
MacRumors
Jul 18, 01:41 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Think Secret claims (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0607itunesmovies.html) that Steve Jobs will announce the addition of a movie rental service to the iTunes Music Store during his keynote speech at the Worldwide Developers Conference (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060307132013.shtml) on August 7.
MacRumors reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060619101731.shtml) last month that movie studios had mixed feelings about Steve Jobs, some regarding him as a friend and some as a foe, and Think Secret's report indicates that the studios have won this negotiation round, limiting movies to rentals instead of outright purchases, with playback limited either by number of viewings or by an expiration date.
Deals with Walt Disney Studios, Universal Studios, Paramount Pictures, and Warner Brothers Pictures are said to be complete, with others in progress.
Apple's decision to implement a rental model for movies is a major departure for the company and Mr. Jobs. Apple had been trying for months to persuade the movie studios that the a-la-carte model of buying individual titles, as the iTunes Music Store offers with music, was the way to go. The studios, however, has been fixed on offering only a subscription or rental-based model.
Think Secret claims (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0607itunesmovies.html) that Steve Jobs will announce the addition of a movie rental service to the iTunes Music Store during his keynote speech at the Worldwide Developers Conference (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060307132013.shtml) on August 7.
MacRumors reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060619101731.shtml) last month that movie studios had mixed feelings about Steve Jobs, some regarding him as a friend and some as a foe, and Think Secret's report indicates that the studios have won this negotiation round, limiting movies to rentals instead of outright purchases, with playback limited either by number of viewings or by an expiration date.
Deals with Walt Disney Studios, Universal Studios, Paramount Pictures, and Warner Brothers Pictures are said to be complete, with others in progress.
Apple's decision to implement a rental model for movies is a major departure for the company and Mr. Jobs. Apple had been trying for months to persuade the movie studios that the a-la-carte model of buying individual titles, as the iTunes Music Store offers with music, was the way to go. The studios, however, has been fixed on offering only a subscription or rental-based model.
roadbloc
Apr 26, 04:01 PM
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
So is "Apple".
Why can't anyone come up with original company names? Like Microsoft. :rolleyes:
So is "Apple".
Why can't anyone come up with original company names? Like Microsoft. :rolleyes:
blybug
Jan 12, 06:30 PM
Thing is it would have to be cheap enough for a hospital to give out to all the doctors and such (I think we're using Epic now or something).
Well, not to be completely selfish, but I'm just talking about getting one for me. All the other doctors are on their own :rolleyes:
But yeah...a trimmed down OSX could still run a Citrix client, which is how I access EPIC directly from my Mac currently. Would be even smoother than VNC or Back to my Mac. However I anticipate that if there is a slim tablet style device that some kinda way it has to have some sort of screen sharing built in, that way even though it is thin (physically AND specification-wise), you can still do big things with it via your remote machine. I mean Leopard's Back to my Mac feature is just screaming to be officially on an iPhone and/or somewhat larger-screened device.
Maybe that's really what's "in the air"....your home/office computer (PC or Mac) and everything on it is now beamed to your tablet wirelessly. The AirBook is really little more than a WiFi screen.
Well, not to be completely selfish, but I'm just talking about getting one for me. All the other doctors are on their own :rolleyes:
But yeah...a trimmed down OSX could still run a Citrix client, which is how I access EPIC directly from my Mac currently. Would be even smoother than VNC or Back to my Mac. However I anticipate that if there is a slim tablet style device that some kinda way it has to have some sort of screen sharing built in, that way even though it is thin (physically AND specification-wise), you can still do big things with it via your remote machine. I mean Leopard's Back to my Mac feature is just screaming to be officially on an iPhone and/or somewhat larger-screened device.
Maybe that's really what's "in the air"....your home/office computer (PC or Mac) and everything on it is now beamed to your tablet wirelessly. The AirBook is really little more than a WiFi screen.
macfan70
Nov 29, 03:47 PM
?
.
In regards to the iTV, will Apple maybe release different versions?
1. Just stream and 802.11n Hub Device
2. With HD and EyeTv.
3. Mac Mini/iTv Combo Media Center
Just a thought.
.
In regards to the iTV, will Apple maybe release different versions?
1. Just stream and 802.11n Hub Device
2. With HD and EyeTv.
3. Mac Mini/iTv Combo Media Center
Just a thought.
Benguitar
Nov 25, 11:02 PM
My gosh, they gigantic case joke was funny at first, then he tells you it's not amusing to him anymore, so you continue. You're beating a dead horse. In fact, this horse's insides are smeared all over the road.
Yes, Thank you, Beating a dead horse.
I'm a manager at an eyewear boutique. This is not Sunglasses Hut. We do not carry Oakley. We specialize in high-end, independent, mostly European designers that most people haven't heard of.
$400 is average for a pair of frames. The average pair of rx glasses without insurance is between $700 and $900.
I have never seen a case as intense as that gun case used to protect eyewear, ever! But don't take offense, each to his own.
Just wanted to raise awareness to all these people stating that $200-$400 is "expensive" for eyewear when they are spending $$$$$$ on phones, computers, tvs, etc; which are probably replaced more frequently than the glasses which help them see and are the first accessory others see on them.
Glasses should be as important of an investment as your fancy electronics.
Check out these brands if you're interested: ic! Berlin, Face a Face, Orgreen, Bevel, undostrial, strada del sol, historie du voire, theo, and so many more.
- eyewear nerd:cool:
Cool, Good for you, I personally have never liked "boutique" stuff, Just because of bad experiences with guitarists who worship the term and think anything else is horrible.
That being said, I've never heard of Oakley as "boutique" But if they do, I will admit that would have made me sound like a hypocrite. Also, I was not aware that that case is a gun case, That is just speculation made by another MacRumors member. As I said, I purchased it at a photography store and it is a Pelican Case.
From what I've seen most gun cases are metal? Eh, Whatever. Not another argument please.
Now... To end the eyeglasses argument forever, It is no longer my latest purchase.
I purchased a blue iPod Shuffle for my good friend and physical trainer.
http://images.apple.com/ipodshuffle/images/hero1_20100901.jpg
Yes, Thank you, Beating a dead horse.
I'm a manager at an eyewear boutique. This is not Sunglasses Hut. We do not carry Oakley. We specialize in high-end, independent, mostly European designers that most people haven't heard of.
$400 is average for a pair of frames. The average pair of rx glasses without insurance is between $700 and $900.
I have never seen a case as intense as that gun case used to protect eyewear, ever! But don't take offense, each to his own.
Just wanted to raise awareness to all these people stating that $200-$400 is "expensive" for eyewear when they are spending $$$$$$ on phones, computers, tvs, etc; which are probably replaced more frequently than the glasses which help them see and are the first accessory others see on them.
Glasses should be as important of an investment as your fancy electronics.
Check out these brands if you're interested: ic! Berlin, Face a Face, Orgreen, Bevel, undostrial, strada del sol, historie du voire, theo, and so many more.
- eyewear nerd:cool:
Cool, Good for you, I personally have never liked "boutique" stuff, Just because of bad experiences with guitarists who worship the term and think anything else is horrible.
That being said, I've never heard of Oakley as "boutique" But if they do, I will admit that would have made me sound like a hypocrite. Also, I was not aware that that case is a gun case, That is just speculation made by another MacRumors member. As I said, I purchased it at a photography store and it is a Pelican Case.
From what I've seen most gun cases are metal? Eh, Whatever. Not another argument please.
Now... To end the eyeglasses argument forever, It is no longer my latest purchase.
I purchased a blue iPod Shuffle for my good friend and physical trainer.
http://images.apple.com/ipodshuffle/images/hero1_20100901.jpg
KevanDual2.5
Sep 7, 03:16 AM
You are alone on this one - the end of the G5 iMac has already happened, in fact it happened a long time ago when Apple introduced the first Intel iMacs. Hate to break it to ya, but G5 iMacs haven't been around for a long time, nor does a 24" G5 iMac even exist. :p :cool:
As for this new incarnation of the Intel iMac though, it totally depends on Apple's strategy. If they want to leave it as a desktop computer, yeah, it probably doesn't make sense to get much bigger. However, if they want to eventually incorporate a TV tuner and make it even more media-centric, and have it evolve into something else, then this may just be the beginning, not the end. :cool:
As other people have recognised..... the reference to G5 is in relation to the exterior, not the chipset.
I don't know whether you're right or wrong about a possible design change in the near future, but your terminology is wrong.
The G5 iMac is not a model. The G5 is a CPU. The iMac has not been a "G5" (or, to be more correct, has not had a G5) since January.
It's just "iMac." A G5 with a Core 2 Duo chip is like spouting off how you have a great "Intel Pentium Athlon machine made by AMD." People will see right through the ignorance.
Some people have recognised that the reference to G5 relates to the exterior design, not the chips inside.
As for this new incarnation of the Intel iMac though, it totally depends on Apple's strategy. If they want to leave it as a desktop computer, yeah, it probably doesn't make sense to get much bigger. However, if they want to eventually incorporate a TV tuner and make it even more media-centric, and have it evolve into something else, then this may just be the beginning, not the end. :cool:
As other people have recognised..... the reference to G5 is in relation to the exterior, not the chipset.
I don't know whether you're right or wrong about a possible design change in the near future, but your terminology is wrong.
The G5 iMac is not a model. The G5 is a CPU. The iMac has not been a "G5" (or, to be more correct, has not had a G5) since January.
It's just "iMac." A G5 with a Core 2 Duo chip is like spouting off how you have a great "Intel Pentium Athlon machine made by AMD." People will see right through the ignorance.
Some people have recognised that the reference to G5 relates to the exterior design, not the chips inside.
JGowan
Jan 13, 01:03 AM
I think it's going to be a tablet that slaps the crap out of the Kindle. It'll be a full on computer tablet that does eBooks, too and is totally wireless like Kindle and can surf the internet like Kindle (free, like Kindle) but, again gives Kindle a sound beating in every single way known to man.
econgeek
Apr 12, 09:12 PM
Fine. You all go and apply to work at a post house and put "iMovie" on your resume. See how long it takes for them to laugh you out the door.
You're claiming there are ignorant bigots in the industry. I don't think anyone disagrees with you. The better qualifier for an editor would be to see some of their work. Someone who can achieve greatness with iMovie probably is a better editor than someone who can achieve the same greatness with FCP.
I haven't really used iMovie since HD, so to be honest I don't really care what they do to it. It's "Super quick to capture and edit DV" time has come and gone.
Even before the reworking you are complaining about it was an HD product, not a DV product. And if you haven't used it, one what basis are you saying it time has come and gone? Prejudice?
On the manufacturing side, the creating side the professional side there are many times complex problems to solve and those problems require more complicated tools.
You really are worried that Final Cut Pro will not be more complicated than iMovie??!
You're claiming there are ignorant bigots in the industry. I don't think anyone disagrees with you. The better qualifier for an editor would be to see some of their work. Someone who can achieve greatness with iMovie probably is a better editor than someone who can achieve the same greatness with FCP.
I haven't really used iMovie since HD, so to be honest I don't really care what they do to it. It's "Super quick to capture and edit DV" time has come and gone.
Even before the reworking you are complaining about it was an HD product, not a DV product. And if you haven't used it, one what basis are you saying it time has come and gone? Prejudice?
On the manufacturing side, the creating side the professional side there are many times complex problems to solve and those problems require more complicated tools.
You really are worried that Final Cut Pro will not be more complicated than iMovie??!
skiltrip
Sep 24, 08:32 AM
Me too...
As much as Belkins and the Incipio (I own dermaSHOT) cases are considered "quality" the little 99 cent cases have a place in my small world. two words - Color choices.
As it seems, we are all "covered" :)
Yeah, I have been "wearing" a different color each day, alternating between Black, Red, and Blue. I don't care much for the Orange or Green one I got, they are pretty ugly.
As much as Belkins and the Incipio (I own dermaSHOT) cases are considered "quality" the little 99 cent cases have a place in my small world. two words - Color choices.
As it seems, we are all "covered" :)
Yeah, I have been "wearing" a different color each day, alternating between Black, Red, and Blue. I don't care much for the Orange or Green one I got, they are pretty ugly.
No comments:
Post a Comment