Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read. - Or Not.

Salesman does sales job - and quite muddled at that.

That post is so muddled, I don't know where to start.

Fortunately (and not unexpectedly) most of the good points have already been made here by the usual suspects. So I'll try to keep my thoughts here short.

For all the excess that Aindres exhibits here (http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/22909) it is no more ridiculous to claim, as Philip Hodgetts does, to know the psychology of Apple when he says "Apple understands the pressure that's on production folk."

I've read a little bit of his blog on relevant issues since the release of FCPX. He does like magic numbers: "200 to 400% faster", "universally" no less, from "a lot of people" who have been "using Final Cut Pro X on a huge project".

Of course all of this grinds down to the details: what constitutes a "huge project", how many people are "a lot", and most tellingly: what exactly is it faster at doing? … and faster than what?

"The present and future of post production business and technology"? - not really. He seems to be comparing certain functions of FCPX to 2 year old software from Apple (that has been neglected for longer). A more useful survey might be a comparison of how different software packages compare in terms of "the pressure that's on production folk". It might make it clearer why he feels FCPX is superior. (Their concerns are about having time for the edit).

But imaginary numbers aside, it's the other bit that is more telling: what is it doing faster?

The examples he gives seem to include transcoding and "polish". Faster transcoding is unquestoinable valuable. No transcoding is even better. Canned "polish" can be left for another discussion (already started here by others).

No one has yet invented an NLE that can make you think and feel faster.

The thing is, if he's really onto the speed game, those "efficiencies" in time - where does he imagine think that "extra time" ends up? In the edit room? Can anyone give me an historical example of anything where efficiencies in production ended up giving the worker "more time"? That efficiency becomes standard expectation on the producing end. He might be arguing with his vague, framing comment about the "democratization of video" that the new producers-as-editors will benefit from that - I don't know, that link isn't clear and is also contradicted by his focus on "huge projects". But it's also not his summary statement at the end:

"It seems to me that if getting to a cut faster – and getting to a more finished cut while you do it – are the realities of a lot of editors lives, then Final Cut Pro X has been designed perfectly for the modern, professional edit environment."

He muddies these waters too in the comments by stating that there are only 25,500 "film or video editor" in the U.S. according to government statistics; but that the "market" is more than that. So is he speaking to the pressures of the "professional" market (his scare quotes) or the "editing market". If its the latter, he should adjust his rhetoric. (Shane Ross makes this exact comment).

But this comment from Philip (in response to Shane) is absolutely ridiculous (and quite bold in its rhetorical acrobatics):

The “working editor” is a construct and real only to you and those like you working in the niche business that is film and TV.

I'll be frank: I would be embarrassed to say to anyone that I work with that new software has made me "200 to 400% faster" - it shows a real lack of valuing what it is that I do as an editor, by belittling it and trying to use numbers as a crutch. (Let me be clear - I don't mind talking about faster transcoding, faster distribution, etc.)

I'll add to the compliments to you Jeremy (and those here in general): This forum offers so much more perspective.