Rumor: Apple's iMovie to receive significant (Cloud) update at Macworl


Video editors VS the Web  

10 members have voted

  1. 1. Should iMovie become web-based or stay as a separate app on the computer?

    • It should become a web application, even if it includes a few less features due to web limitations
      0
    • It should become a web application only if it's something awfully close to the real application
      1
    • It should definately remain a separate application on the computer
      7
    • I won't use it anyway, so...
      2


Recommended Posts

I've heard from reliable sources that Apple will offer a significant update to iMovie at next week's Macworld. It will largely focus on Internet video in the Cloud for the YouTube generation.

I've heard that iMovie will largely (if not entirely) be a Web Application and Apple would offer its users to "upload your movies to us and edit them there."

There are currently a few online applications that let you do video editing currently. Google's Youtube is also adding rudimentary editing features.

I am not certain if this means that iMovie is now entirely a Web Application or if Apple is offering a "Cloud" component to its iMovie application.

Read more...

Source : http://blogs.computerworld.com/rumor_apple...ate_at_macworld

What do you guys think of that?

Should an application like iMovie be used with browsers like Safari and Firefox (which would be available for Windows users then, most likely) or should it stay an application on the computer?

I really liked the way you could skim through a video with just the mouse in the latest iMovie, but totally hated that there's no effects and poor sound editing. I wish they had come up with something that was really better than the previous iMovie you know, but no. I can be an Apple fanboy at times, but I can still judge what's right and wrong, and thought that iMovie 08 was just not the app it was supposed to be.

Now, let's believe Apple created Mobile Me just to learn about how to do these web services accordingly. Do you think it is possible to come up with something good, knowing that webpages have a lot of limitations? Would you feel safe by uploading your videos to a remote server? Would you be able to upload, say, 40GB files and then edit them, or if it's possible to use these web services to edit things locally and save them locally (as I have no idea)?

Personally, the only good point I see is that your computer would probably not be used for rendering stuff like effects and transitions, it would be the server I think. But other than that, I really don't see how this could become useful.

I know Adobe wants a Photoshop on the web, Microsoft are looking towards a version of Office on the web, ... I just don't feel it.

Any thoughts?

Should an application like iMovie be used with browsers like Safari and Firefox (which would be available for Windows users then, most likely) or should it stay an application on the computer?

The proposal is that I take raw HD video from my camera - ship that across the web and then edit in a browser window? questions:

  • 1) How do I get the data off the camera
    2) How do I get it to the website (choose files and upload?)
    3) What is the benefit to having a web-based application for editing video?

Given the limits of network connections a web-based iMovie is very unlikely.

Now, let's believe Apple created Mobile Me just to learn about how to do these web services accordingly.

If that was the goal then they should have learned that the web is not a suitable platform for this sort of application.

Do you think it is possible to come up with something good, knowing that webpages have a lot of limitations?

Something good? Sure, depending on how you define "good". Something as good as a desktop application: no.

Would you feel safe by uploading your videos to a remote server?

I would die before the upload finished.

Would you be able to upload, say, 40GB files and then edit them,

Assuming it got there, you could edit it. But the whole thing would be horribly cumbersome and slow.

Average US broadband upload speed is 120 kbytes/second.

a 10-minute clip of HD video from my Panasonic SD-1 is about 1GB.

That's almost 3 hours of upload time before I can even start to edit.

If you record something like a school play (40 minutes) you're going to have to go have to leave your computer over night to do the upload.

or if it's possible to use these web services to edit things locally and save them locally (as I have no idea)?

You can send the data to a site, but the site cannot read local files. it would require a browser plugin that bypasses standard browser security. But even if you could, that data is still going to have to be uploaded to the server for actual processing, otherwise you'd just be using a local app. You wouldn't really gain anything at all.

Personally, the only good point I see is that your computer would probably not be used for rendering stuff like effects and transitions, it would be the server I think. But other than that, I really don't see how this could become useful.

rendering of special effects isn't terribly taxing. the conversion a final format (ie: converting your video to mpeg 2 to burn to DVD) is the biggest time sink.

Keep in mind that after you've uploaded your several gigabytes of video, after all the editing and processing is done you'd have to be sent back the final compressed files (ie: mpeg4 for the web, or mpeg 2 for putting on DVD) so you could look forward to another significant wait.

If that was the goal then they should have learned that the web is not a suitable platform for this sort of application.

In fact, I think MobileMe is just fine as it is, but what I meant between the lines is, let's say Apple doesn't do as much mistakes as they did with MobileMe because they learned from developing this.

You can send the data to a site, but the site cannot read local files.

That's what I thought. Just this pretty much infirms the rumour IMO.

My new HD camera for instance, which is worth 600 CAD (what I mean by this is, it's a regular cam, nothing special), has a 40GB hard drive inside of it. The data through iMovie becomes twice as big from what I've seen in my last import, so let's say 80GB. I have a really fast connection, but it would take days for me to upload even @ 1 mbits / s.

I guess I'd die too before it's uploaded ;)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Onkyo Dolby Atmos AV receivers are really solid deals by Sayan Sen Recently we covered great deals on several soundbar models from the likes of Sony, JBL, Samsung and others for really good prices (the lowest in several months). Aside from that we also reported on the Edifier S3000MKII, a hi-fi two-way bookshelf monitor that's available for only $800. Today we bring a list of AV receivers from Onkyo that are available at great prices including the Onkyo NR7100, RZ30, and 8470 (purchase links under the specs table down below). The Onkyo TX-NR7100 and Onkyo TX-RZ30 are both 9.2-channel AV receivers designed for immersive home theater setups but they occupy slightly different tiers within Onkyo’s lineup with the RZ30 positioned as the more advanced model. The TX-NR7100 is a THX Certified 9.2-channel receiver offering up to 100 W per channel (8 ohms, 2 channels driven). It supports Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, and IMAX Enhanced formats, with flexible configurations such as 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 speaker layouts. A key highlight is its built-in Dirac Live Room Correction which should help optimize sound based on your room and its acoustics. In comparison, both models share several core capabilities though the RZ30 is geared toward enthusiasts seeking more precise calibration and system flexibility, while the NR7100 is positioned as a slightly more accessible, value-focused option with strong all-round performance. The technical specs of the RZ30 and NR7100 9.2 AVRs are given in the table below: Specification Onkyo TX-RZ30 Onkyo TX-NR7100 Power Output (FTC, 2ch driven) ~100 W/ch (8Ω, 20Hz–20kHz, 0.08% THD) 100 W/ch (8Ω, 20Hz–20kHz, 0.08% THD) Dynamic / Peak Power 9 × 170 W (6Ω, 1kHz, 1% THD, 1ch driven) 220 W/ch (6Ω, 1kHz, 10% THD, 1ch driven) Frequency Response 5 Hz – 100 kHz (+1/-3 dB) 10 Hz – 100 kHz (+1/-3 dB) THD 0.08% 0.08% Room Correction Dirac Live (full bandwidth) Dirac Live (with AccuReflex support) Immersive Audio Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, IMAX Enhanced Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, IMAX Enhanced Speaker Layout Support Up to 7.2.2 / 5.2.4 / 9.2 processing Up to 7.2.4 / 5.2.4 / 9.2 processing HDMI Inputs / Outputs 6 inputs / 2 outputs (eARC) 6 inputs / 2 outputs (Main + Sub/Zone 2) HDMI 2.1 Support 8K/60, 4K/120, VRR, ALLM, QFT, DSC, eARC 8K/60, 4K/120, VRR, ALLM, QFT, DSC, eARC Video Formats HDR10+, Dolby Vision, HDCP 2.3 HDR10+, Dolby Vision, HDCP 2.3 Streaming / Network Wi-Fi, AirPlay 2, Chromecast, Bluetooth, DTS Play-Fi Wi-Fi, AirPlay 2, Chromecast, Bluetooth, DTS Play-Fi Get them at the links below: Onkyo TX-RZ30 9.2-Channel AV Receiver: $797.00 (Sold and shipped by Electronic Expo) Onkyo TX-NR7100 9.2-Channel AV Receiver: $699.00 (Sold and shipped by Adorma) Onkyo TX-8470 2 Ch Stereo Receiver: $449.00 (Sold and Shipped by Adorma) Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links or authorized dealer links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from such links only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • A different thing with Russia. When you say is it better, depends on things. It is better that we don't have the E.U making rules and laws that have nothing to do with them. Is the trading part better? No, that is really mucked up, but then we knew that was going to happen and we would have make agreements, like we do with other parts of the world. Freedom of movement is certainly better, but could be improved, we still need more control over our borders. do you live in the U.K?
    • So what am I quoting from them? I never listened to what Farage or his cronies said. I wanted the U.K to leave the E.u years before the referendum and it had nothing to do with Farage and his cronies. So what country do you live in? Did we work much better together? We were always at logger heads with the E.U because we disagreed with them so much. Maggie was always on at them. I would have thought the E.U was glad to get rid of us as we stopped the integration or made it a two tier. Now without us they can integrate more. I would not have voted out if it was just a trading block and we can still work together on somethings.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      498
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      224
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      148
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!