Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
APPLE FINAL CUT PRO:HomeFCP ForumFCP XFCPX TechniquesFCP TutorialsFC ServerBasics ForumPodcastFAQ

Might Be An Interesting Read

COW Forums : Decks & VTRs

VIEW ALL   •   PRINT
Share on Facebook
Kevin PatrickMight Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 1:57:35 pm

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/news/643-adobe-asked-apple-to-shut-down-fin...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 4:48:20 pm

I do think this is a root that lead Apple to develop their direction on software and hardware.

Sales of Macs were driven in part by the sales of Adobe software products, and should the dilemma escalate, Apple could lose a critical supply partner and re-ignite fears of bankruptcy.

One thing I think Apple learned from the above as well as Avid's pronouncement sometime later that they were discontinuing Mac development (but did not after an outcry) is that Apple would avoid putting themselves into a position to depend on outside software to sell their hardware.

Regardless of what one thinks of FCPX, it is there because Avid and Adobe account for some Mac sales and Apple doesn't want to suffer another pull out.

BTW the above article points to this from Timeline which is worth a read.
http://timelinebook.tumblr.com/



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 4:55:28 pm

... a bit of a dry read, but there was this gem (in the orig excerpt linked by Craig):

If Apple hadn’t decided to buy Final Cut then, it would not exist today, ...

... Which is ironic. Because Apple did buy Final Cut. And it doesn't exist today.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Craig SeemanRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 5:05:20 pm

Although look at where Apple went with iMovie. Originally hoping Adobe would make an entry level NLE that Apple could include with Macs and yet they decided to bring it in house.

I think, over a decade later, Apple decided to go the same direction with FCP and do an in house version.
Note that the abandoned apps, Shake, Color, FCP legacy all were from outside code. Whereas Motion, Compressor and the new FCPX are all in house.

This leads me to want to make all sorts of speculative comments, which I will refrain from doing.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 5:14:32 pm

"This leads me to want to make all sorts of speculative comments, which I will refrain from doing."

Oh, go ahead, it's a slow Friday, besides, without some wild speculations how could we be sure it's you.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Paul DickinRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 5:23:12 pm

Quote from Timeline 2:
"Elsewhere at Apple company lawyers had completed the due diligence process on the Macromedia Final Cut deal, and cleared up all issues concerning the use of picture icons (picons) in the editing interface for a potential breach of the Montage patents owned by the Haberman family. "
Hi
Would that still have been an ongoing 'issue' in 2011?



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


andy lewisRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 5:51:17 pm

Is high-end (avid) post mostly on mac hardware?

If so, this suggests a different way of looking at FCPX (at least to me, maybe I'm slow).

Either way apple have the high end pretty much sown up in terms of income. They are only vulnerable from the consumer end of the market ie. someone developing a nice, cheap, easy-to-use NLE on windows that completely bypasses the established pro sector and takes over as the industry fragments.

It's actually struck me before that there don't seem to be any great options for enthusiastic amateurs on the windows side of things. Vegas? I don't think so. Maybe just one good piece of software in this area could spread very rapidly and become a standard, and apple are aware of this.

Just brainstormin'


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 6:02:01 pm

[andy lewis] "Either way apple have the high end pretty much sown up in terms of income."

Ultimately Apple sells hardware. Apple does not want to risk anyone (again) threatening to pull support whether it be Avid or Adobe. FCPX is Apple's insurance policy. It's there to sell hardware. It's going to get a lot of attention from Apple because they don't want to leave themselves vulnerable. Given Avid's and Adobe's history I think it would be foolish for Apple to depend on either for hardware sales.

Of course we don't know to what extent Avid and Adobe has of the Mac market but the Mac revenues are very close to the iPad revenue (iPhone beating both soundly though). I suspect that Apple wants to INCREASE Mac sales and Avid and Adobe are both cross platform (and some would argue better served on Windows) is something Apple isn't going to expect of them.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 6:28:24 pm

[andy lewis] "It's actually struck me before that there don't seem to be any great options for enthusiastic amateurs on the windows side of things. Vegas? I don't think so. Maybe just one good piece of software in this area could spread very rapidly and become a standard, and apple are aware of this."

Adobe Premiere Elements is cross platform and was just made available in the App store. $80. I understand it's getting good reviews in the outside world. It only has one review in the app store though. 5 stars. I had to chuckle when I saw only 2 of 31 customers found the review helpful (but all they said was Great app so it truly is a useless review).


Personally the more diversity in cross platform NLEs, the more likely Apple is going to invest in their Mac only NLEs. Every crossplatform product is a potential hook to move people to Windows hardware at some point down the road.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 5:55:31 pm

[Paul Dickin] "Hi
Would that still have been an ongoing 'issue' in 2011?"


Part of my wild speculation but I'd guess yes actually. I've alluded to it before. Apple's dropping of FCS suddenly and without warning, without their continued EOL sales (as they've done with Shake and even iDVD/iWeb as part of iLife) as well as not following the same transitions used between OS9 and OSX as well as PPC to Intel, leads me to believe there was a licensing issue they couldn't (or didn't want to) resolve.

In short that some license needed to be renewed and maybe it was at a price they didn't want to pay for a product they were transitioning away from. I can only imagine that months back they probably thought they'd renew at a much lower cost than they were hit with on the negotiating table.

If you read the history of FCP on Wikipedia, one of the reasons Macromedia sold FCP to Apple was due to a licensing issue they were experiencing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro
Macromedia could not release the product without causing its partner Truevision some issues with Microsoft, as KeyGrip was, in part, based on technology from Microsoft licensed to Truevision and then in turn to Macromedia. The terms of the IP licensing deal stated that it was not to be used in conjunction with QuickTime. Thus, Macromedia was forced to keep the product off the market until a solution could be found.

There's no way we can know this but that there was a license renewal issue seems to be the only rational reason for Apple to make a business decision to EOL and cease sales of FCS so suddenly. Of course some of you just think Apple was being a (expletive of your choice) but I think are being lead by their emotions. Apple's a business. They don't seem to be stupid in that department. That it was EOLd was part of the longer plan but that it was pulled so suddenly may have been due to a position they were placed and (and may not have wanted to negotiate out of).



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 5:55:36 pm

How can IP not be an ongoing "issue" in any transaction between large companies?

Look at the patent portfolio battles of earlier this year with monster corporations joining into virtual cabals in order to secure shared ownership of huge blocks of patents so that they're shielded from having to pay out royalties on stuff in their own work that might conceivably be deemed derivative in a future court battle.

Software development is ALL about IP.

And if someone sniffs that your solution might be built on somebody else's patent, the lawyers start drooling because big money can be shifted, sometimes with just the "threat" of legal action.

I don't know what IP issues were buried in FCP-Legacy. But it would be silly to expect that there weren't some. So the "blank page" beginning makes HUGE sense if you want to go forward with a product that is clear of as much IP baggage as is possible.

Maybe that's a small part of what drove the "X" transformation. Clean slate = best way to insure clean Apple IP going forward.

If so, that's going to be a HUGE competitive advantage for X in the future - and might be why they can do it profitably for $299 on the ITMS. Sure no WMV direct support is a PITA for some users, but it also means no need to carve out dollars to send to external IP owners out of the revenue stream in every transaction.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 6:11:50 pm

[Bill Davis] "I don't know what IP issues were buried in FCP-Legacy. But it would be silly to expect that there weren't some. So the "blank page" beginning makes HUGE sense if you want to go forward with a product that is clear of as much IP baggage as is possible."

I absolutely think this was a driving force in Apple's decision. They dumped all outside code. It may even relate to some of the changes in naming conventions.

I think fundamentally Apple's handling of FCS to FCPX were in part due to legal/licensing/IP reasons.

[Bill Davis] "but it also means no need to carve out dollars to send to external IP owners out of the revenue stream in every transaction."

This why I think FCS was killed so suddenly. I suspect a long transition was not viable given certain licenses/IP, etc.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 6:34:13 pm

"This why I think FCS was killed so suddenly. I suspect a long transition was not viable given certain licenses/IP, etc."

Which might make sense except for the fact that, under duress, they put Legacy back on the market. As far as I know they are still selling it thru some channels. If the licensing issues were so problematic in June, how did they resolve them by August? And is they could resolve them by August, what stopped them from resolving it by June?

Questions, questions...


"[Bill Davis] "I don't know what IP issues were buried in FCP-Legacy. But it would be silly to expect that there weren't some. So the "blank page" beginning makes HUGE sense if you want to go forward with a product that is clear of as much IP baggage as is possible."

I absolutely think this was a driving force in Apple's decision. They dumped all outside code. It may even relate to some of the changes in naming conventions."


Writing your own code from scratch does not in any way inure you to the threat of IP violations. It is the concept that is often at issue not the actual code. Picons in a browser, film strips in a browser, there are a lot of lawyers willing, for a fee, to prove that their is no difference, both are a visual representation of a clip ... blah blah blah.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 7:02:15 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Which might make sense except for the fact that, under duress, they put Legacy back on the market."

Only through phone sales directly from Apple. I do think that even that restriction may have involved "legal" handling. We don't know what the agreement was that hung Apple. Perhaps as long as all marketing through web, retail, etc. has ceased they can do this. Perhaps there was another potential conflict regarding closing off facilities to additional seats without warning. I've heard various permutations of this. Nothing that could even be remotely confirmed and many aspects refuted. One example is that there was a claim that only "current FCS license holders" could be additional seats but the refutation is that's not being enforced.

I don't think we'll know the details for a long time or ever (well, until the "tell all" book comes out). I do think there's a legal tangle involved or the avoidance of one.

[Herb Sevush] "Writing your own code from scratch does not in any way inure you to the threat of IP violations."

It's not just the code but the code and what they do, don't do with it that allows them to build a more defensible wall. I think Apple is doing that quite deliberately.

Just because a kevlar vest doesn't prevent you from being shot in the head doesn't mean you eschew it . . . just as seat belts won't protect from death in every imaginable form of auto accident, you still wear one. Apple is creating a defense. That's the reason. Nothing isn't impenetrable but that doesn't mean you don't do to the best of your ability.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 8:43:47 pm

[Herb Sevush] ""This why I think FCS was killed so suddenly. I suspect a long transition was not viable given certain licenses/IP, etc."

Which might make sense except for the fact that, under duress, they put Legacy back on the market. As far as I know they are still selling it thru some channels. If the licensing issues were so problematic in June, how did they resolve them by August?

SNIP

If they had a bunch of unsold product in warehouses wouldn't that have simply fallen under their old licensing agreements? (just guessing as I'm clearly NOT an IIP attorney .) But I *think* it might have been possible that Apple could legally sell anything produced under their existing agreements - making the decision to make Legacy available easy. What they might not have been able to do was produce NEW product if there wasn't a new agreement. That would make some sense.



"[Bill Davis] "I don't know what IP issues were buried in FCP-Legacy. But it would be silly to expect that there weren't some. So the "blank page" beginning makes HUGE sense if you want to go forward with a product that is clear of as much IP baggage as is possible."

(Craigs comment snipped)

Writing your own code from scratch does not in any way inure you to the threat of IP violations. It is the concept that is often at issue not the actual code. Picons in a browser, film strips in a browser, there are a lot of lawyers willing, for a fee, to prove that their is no difference, both are a visual representation of a clip ... blah blah blah.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions"



To my knowledge, nothing can ever insulate anyone from being sued for anything. The key is having the strongest possible defense to the allegations. The act of starting from a blank piece of paper to develop a program might be a pretty good beginning, in my non-professional opinion.

Maybe there was a roomful of lawyers somewhere at Apple reading this very forum and after seeing all the posts about how the FCP-team had "destroyed what FCP-has been" " they grinned ear to ear.

What better evidence that you've "destroyed" the old and created something radically new — than a bunch of "haters" publicly arguing exactly that day after day in open forums.

Be kinda ironic, actually.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 9:19:57 pm

"But I *think* it might have been possible that Apple could legally sell anything produced under their existing agreements - making the decision to make Legacy available easy"

If it was so easy why didn't they start that way in June? No matter what possibility you come up with the facts are these -

Apple announces immediate EOL in June.
Customer uproar.
Apple announces limited sales in August.


What would have stopped them from this scenario -

Apple announces limited sales in June with future EOL
Customer much less uproar.


Unless you can reasonably explain why the second path wasn't taken, then you really aren't explaining anything.

"The act of starting from a blank piece of paper to develop a program might be a pretty good beginning, in my non-professional opinion."

Somewhere around 1972 George Harrison started with a blank sheet of paper and wrote the song "My Sweet Lord." About 5 years later he was successfully sued by the author of the Chiffon's hit "He's So Fine." The court ruled that even though G. Harrison wasn't aware he was copying the song, he had heard it before and unconscious plagiarism was still an infringement.

I'm guessing that starting with a blank sheet means nothing. There seem to be conventions in NLE editing that have been copyrighted; if you infringe you might get sued, whether you write the code from scratch or not.

And since I have no legal training whatsoever, you can take that opinion for what it's worth.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 13, 2011 at 2:30:22 am

[Paul Dickin] "Elsewhere at Apple company lawyers had completed the due diligence process on the Macromedia Final Cut deal, and cleared up all issues concerning the use of picture icons (picons) in the editing interface for a potential breach of the Montage patents owned by the Haberman family. ""

I used to own a Montage, so I was pretty familiar with the company. It is my belief that the patents expired around a decade ago.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

John BuckRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 14, 2011 at 1:26:33 am

FWIW
One of the reasons I started writing the book "Timeline" was that I thought I knew stuff, and as it turns out I didn't know half. After four years of research I learnt that I could no longer get away with assuming I knew everything, and that learning is a constant.

The Habermans and their company Lex Computer and Management acquired the Montage patents at an auction when the original Montage (created by Ron Barker and Chester Schuler) closed its doors.

The US Patent 4538188 is one of the inventions made by Barker, Schuler and their team prior to the 1984 NAB release of the Montage editing system. 4538188 covers the use of picture icons - or picons - to display images for editors. The method was created to get around the problem that computer hardware of the era couldn't play all of the frames of rushes video, so the engineers devised a way to show still frames of the first and last frame of a sequence/clip. Mr Schuler also told me that by creating this method, and crafting patents to cover it, the Montage company became a more valuable proposition for investors.

The general rule with US Patents (and their IP) is that they are enforceable for 17/20 years depending on filing or issue date. 4538188's filing date is Dec 22, 1982 and issue date is Aug 27, 1985. The lapse dates of this patent alone seems to go beyond the dates of Apple's acquisition of the Final Cut code from Macromedia.

To confirm this, I spoke with the Macromedia product manger, and engineering manager for Final Cut at the time.

So Apple would have had to contend with a law suit from Lex Computer and Management if they included picons in Final Cut without a licence, and the fees were a consideration before Apple decided to pay the reported $10m. In fact the Haberman family successfully defended the Montage patents unit at least Dec 2003.

Sure 1999 seems too late for the Montage patents to be still in play, but in play they were. IMHO.

John Buck
timelinebook.tumblr.com

Lawsuit link
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-13...
Patent link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States
Patent filing link
http://www.google.com/patents?id=hCM1AAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=montage+ba+rker+sch...



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris HarlanRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 14, 2011 at 7:50:46 am

John, I knew about the patents, but not that kind of detail. I can't wait to read your book(s). I bought a Montage3 from Lex back in the early 90s, and spent a lot of time exploring other NLEs so I'm familiar enough with the history to know how well you are nailing it. Can't wait.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

John BuckRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 14, 2011 at 7:52:54 am

Chris
Thanks for the positive reply
I would love to add your Montage stories to the mix. Please contact me via email
John



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 14, 2011 at 8:19:37 am

John, just a note. I downloaded Timeline 1 from Apple without any problem. Timeline II, however, only seems to download an eight page synopsis, even after purchasing. Thought you might want to know.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


John BuckRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 14, 2011 at 8:22:24 am

ok thanks for the feedback. i have not heard this error before. try deleting the book off your iPad and then letting it re-sync to iTunes, it will re-download (if there's such a word). i found that fixed a glitch i had with ibooks, but i will report the fault you experienced to the aggregator/publisher none the less.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 5:43:55 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Oh, go ahead, it's a slow Friday, besides, without some wild speculations how could we be sure it's you."

I'll get my kevlar vest on. ;)



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 7:22:49 pm

[Craig Seeman]

Apple does not want to risk anyone (again) threatening to pull support whether it be Avid or Adobe ... because they don't want to leave themselves vulnerable.

Of course some of you just think Apple was being a (expletive of your choice) ... Apple's a business. ... [This] was part of the longer plan ...




Craig,

You never fail to amaze me with your flattering speculation about "Apple's position".

But I think you need to read your statements above and think about the business decisions that people have described here (actual decisions, mind you, not speculation) in light of certain "vulnerabilities" that Apple's recent moves have made apparent - vulnerabilities of long term support, vulnerabilities in terms of reliance on one vendor.

We have facts about motivations for one set of decisions (which you seem to dismiss as "emotional") and speculation about another set of decisions (which you seem to feel is sound business).

Your sympathies are always apparent, but what I often see in your posts is a real emotional investment (or maybe other kinds?) in the success of a company.

What is good for Apple is not at all synonymous with what is good for many editors. Discussion of that reality should not be dismissed as "emotional".

On the other hand, if you were talking about Aindreas ...


Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 7:50:07 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "But I think you need to read your statements above and think about the business decisions that people have described here (actual decisions, mind you, not speculation) in light of certain "vulnerabilities" that Apple's recent moves have made apparent - vulnerabilities of long term support, vulnerabilities in terms of reliance on one vendor."

Yes Apple's strategies is based on people accepting a primary reliance on a single vendor . . . Apple. It's worked for them with iPhone, iPad, iPod and the tie to iTunes.

You may not want to rely on one vendor but that's Apple's business model it is very successful.

In every case their "one vendor" model also involved third parties. ITunes and the App Store are vehicles for third parties to sell through. Thunderbolt is a vehicle for third parties in which Blackmagic, Matrox, AJA, LaCie, Pegasus, Sonnet and others are jumping on.

It's a successful business model regardless of how you FEEL about it.
If Apple meets my business needs that's a FINANCIAL decision.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Frank GothmannRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 11, 2011 at 9:02:33 pm

Proprietary worked for Apple with their consumer products (so far, let's see what the future will bring), it didn't do them well in most other areas and more often than not turned out to be a waste of time and money for the adopter.
FCP was a success because the of the back-then incredible price point which essentially devaluated the entire NLE market. The idea was to push hardware sales via "subsidised" software and it worked. That need is gone.
Reading through your other posts in this threat and others (put on that Kevlar vest) where all this might lead to, why they did it and what not, I seriously think you'd be great in one of those Hitler-in-the-bunker spoofs on Youtube. Pushing around imaginary armies and proclaiming final victory when things went pretty much pear-shaped long time ago.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Bret WilliamsRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 14, 2011 at 1:49:44 pm

Perhaps the whole thing was whole licensing thing was a knee jerk reaction to the fact that it was a licensing issue. Maybe the license was the more obvious one- that part of the code was based on MS code and that Jobs made an agreement with MS back in 99 that was for 10 years. There may have been an assumption that they could renew in 2009 but with Gates gone and the new strain between the 2 companies from the iPhone and Zune, perhaps Apple was seen as a threat and it wasn't renewed. Apple has to start from scratch, so they figure they might as well ditch the marketing dept. They figure they can be ready in a year or so and pay some exorbanant amount for an extension with MS, which expires sometime around June 30th 2011. Realizing that FCP X isn't ready, And that Steve is running on borrowed time, things are pushed into high gear and weird things like the supermeet occur. And, once it is released FCP classic is eol'd along with any other software built in any way on that code.

Along the way, they were getting very excited about the new directions they were headed and lost sight of pro users, since the goal was to make something new. I'm also guessing Randy didn't want to build Premiere a third time. Maybe back in '99 Jobs also made a 10 year agreement with Adobe that adobe would still make Photoshop. Recent strain over flash may have had Adobe threatening to pull PS unless they stop development of Final Cut. Maybe classic was also licensing some conventions from premiere/Adobe.

After the massive uproar over FCP X, Apple had its lawyers dig deep and decided they could sell existing copies via special phone order that but ramping back up the supply chain would be suspect.

Whatever it is, it's a secret that is being kept as well as any Apple secret to date.

On another note- we were happy with using Pages/Numbers until Lion came out. We bought MS Office because it has a "Save As" command. "Versions" is perhaps the most f'd up thing Apple has done in awhile.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bill DavisRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 14, 2011 at 5:33:35 pm

[Bret Williams] "Along the way, they were getting very excited about the new directions they were headed and lost sight of pro users, since the goal was to make something new."

In what way did they "lose sight" of pro users? Are you trying to argue that a sub-frame accuracy in edits, robust timecode support, a monster database under the hood and stuff like Roles are built for folks doing birthday party videos and the occasional low budget wedding?

IMO, saying X is "not for pros" simply reveals the radically myopic view that the only "pro" worthy of the name is someone working in Hollywood on a feature. You're probably watching clips every week in Network Sports Programming searched and broadcast out of FCP-X. That's professional. Period.


[Bret Williams] "We bought MS Office because it has a "Save As" command. "Versions" is perhaps the most f'd up thing Apple has done in awhile."

Wait, I thought the Magnetic Timeline still had that title?

Am I falling behind?

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bret WilliamsRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 14, 2011 at 7:38:31 pm

Seriously? Ok, a LARGE PORTION of professional users. And by definition of Pro I mean those that are paid for their work. I'm aware of the exceptions.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 14, 2011 at 8:01:16 pm

This does not mean they "lost sight." FCPX has professional targeted features but it's still under development. Features will be added as they can be coded and vetted. I can't speak for Bill but that Apple included features that would only be of interest to professionals shows intent even if not complete implementation.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bill DavisRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 15, 2011 at 4:43:17 am

But "paid for their work" is kinda fluid, isn't it?

Every small business in America seems to be in a rush to put their message out in video form. So since the lawnmower repair guy down the street wants to put out videos designed to support a money making business, the wife drawing a paycheck from that business who makes their web videos is arguably being "paid" to do so.

So she's a video pro? I doubt that's what's being alleged here. So what is? What's the threshold that separates the amateur from the pro?

It's a slippery slope. One person's amateur, after all, is another persons pro.

I'm not arguing, by the way, for or against that classification for anyone. Just trying to examine whether the definition of a PRO might actually sometimes need to be narrower and sometimes broader than our individual prejudicial definitions presume.

The point is that there might not actually be just ONE definition of a "professional editor", but many.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David Roth WeissRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 14, 2011 at 10:09:07 pm

[Bill Davis] "IMO, saying X is "not for pros" simply reveals the radically myopic view that the only "pro" worthy of the name is someone working in Hollywood on a feature. You're probably watching clips every week in Network Sports Programming searched and broadcast out of FCP-X. That's professional. Period."

"Radically myopic"? Hardly.

Go back and reread the entire thread in which this was covered before. http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/19545#19634

When you stepped into challenge Herb Sevush on this exact subject I responded to you as follows:

[Bill Davis] "Raise something "video editing mission critical" that it actually "can't" do, not something it can do perfectly well, just not the way you want it to - and I'll be happy to listen."

[David Roth Weiss] Forgetting about proper color, which is highly subjective, how about fields-related issues, which involve no subjectivity?

How exactly can you properly QC the output of FCPX without being able to see mismatched fields or reversed field order, both of which require proper video monitoring?


Evidently, you failed to listen even after saying you'd "be happy to listen."

Nothing has changed since then Bill. No one exporting a finished piece from FCPX can really know if their video will pass QC at this time without proper professional monitoring. That applies to anyone, amateur or professional, not just pros creating feature films.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 15, 2011 at 4:56:21 am

[David Roth Weiss] "[David Roth Weiss] Forgetting about proper color, which is highly subjective, how about fields-related issues, which involve no subjectivity?

How exactly can you properly QC the output of FCPX without being able to see mismatched fields or reversed field order, both of which require proper video monitoring?

Evidently, you failed to listen even after saying you'd "be happy to listen."
"


First, David, I can't find time to visit here enough to see everything.

If I'd responded to that at the time here's what I should have said...

Proper color is another slippery slope. I know too many art directors who regularly decide to replace skys, tint frames, and plenty of shooters who use of "color tricks" like warm cards that technically "screw up" color with intent. I could argue that "proper color" was more critical in the days when broadcast was the DOMINANT game - and a mis-set proc amp anywhere in the chain could mess up that INTENT. In the NLE era, once you get the values correct at ANY point in the chain, you can expect them to remain pretty constant since they're digital values that will largely be maintained by data error checking routines.

Same with fields issues. Fields are an NTSC broadcast requirement. If your work isn't gong to be broadcast, fields are functionally irrelevant. Again you're shoehorning video into YOUR definition of PRO - one that might not be shared by the majority of the others who are playing the game today.

So I am listening. You might not be if you continue to argue that the ONLY video worth value is that which is shoehorned into a classic broadcast environment.

Haven't you even NOTICED that a huge amount of video is being produced today in 23.97 PROGRESSIVE formats - anathema for the 29.97 broadcast world since it requires the hassle of a 3:2 pulldown for use..

Good luck checking that progressive stuff for "field order."

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David Roth WeissRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:07:16 am

Of course Bill, we all know that it's a given there are no fields to deal with when cutting progressive material. Unfortunately, that's totally unresponsive to my post(s). And, as I'm sure you know, most video in this country is still interlaced, because the majority of NTSC TV transmission still requires it. One need only look at the the FCP Forum to see that the vast majority of questions l deal with mixed formats and the fields-related issues arising therefrom.

So, though you claim you don't get to read everything here, you've certainly managed to quickly get on their case whenever anyone questions the professional capabilities of FCPX. And, you've been so absolutely unwaveringly vehement, and so very certain in your arguments to the contrary. However, when I've given you that "mission critical" thing you asked for, pointing out precisely what FCPX can't do, you can't even acknowledge the point, because you know very well it perfectly contradicts your point. That's so hollow.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 15, 2011 at 1:57:57 am

[Bill Davis] " robust timecode support"

You are joking, right?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 15, 2011 at 5:09:50 am

HUD display of frame accurate timecode. Sub frame accuracy baked in for audio handling. Timecode math including search and seek, trim and increment available in the MIDDLE of the editing interface.

Yeah, I'd call that "robust timecode support" since none of those elements are of much interest for someone who's just slapping together a "trip to the beach" video.

What's YOUR take on how FCP handles Timecode?

I guess someone looking to genlock to a BetaCam deck might find the lack of a pathway that enables an analog TC signal via BNC port a problem. But at some point you just have to let the past go.

Or would you like to take the FCP-X engineering team to task for failure to support RS-232, 422 as well?

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris HarlanRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 15, 2011 at 9:01:22 am

Bill, what you describe as robust wouldn't even have been considered so back in 1998. "Robust" would be the ability to re-write or reassign TC for any source material, monitor and match timecode across tracks or synced items, monitor and match timecode at different frame rates. I should be able to, using time code, replace a temp source with a master with matching code in any given timeline. I should be able to monitor in and outs of any given clip or a whole group of clips at the same time. I should have sync markers that demonstrate the number of frames paired or locked items are out of sync, and in what direction. I should have indicators that show sync or lack-there-of across all layers/tracks/or what-you-will. I should be able to generate an EDL, and of course, I should be able to read one and attach material to it. That's robust.

I agree with you that FCP X has more timecode support that a hobbyist might need, but to call it robust is absurd.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:34:57 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Bill, what you describe as robust wouldn't even have been considered so back in 1998. "Robust" would be the ability to re-write or reassign TC for any source material, monitor and match timecode across tracks or synced items, monitor and match timecode at different frame rates. I should be able to, using time code, replace a temp source with a master with matching code in any given timeline. I should be able to monitor in and outs of any given clip or a whole group of clips at the same time. I should have sync markers that demonstrate the number of frames paired or locked items are out of sync, and in what direction. I should have indicators that show sync or lack-there-of across all layers/tracks/or what-you-will. I should be able to generate an EDL, and of course, I should be able to read one and attach material to it. That's robust.

I agree with you that FCP X has more timecode support that a hobbyist might need, but to call it robust is absurd."


Chris,

Thank you for the details. I have absolutely no problem with a single thing you listed in your first paragraph above. Those make a perfectly rational list of requirements for someone doing the specific work you do.

It's no more surprising to me than a watch repair person needing a screwdriver with an almost microscopically small tip. Tools should be available to fit the task at hand.

I will note that in the larger world, very, VERY few toolboxes on the planet include a screwdriver that fine. Because the need is so specialized.

The modern NLE is DECREASINGLY a specialists tool. Apple understood that first. They've revised their flagship product away from a "specialists" orientation - and toward, IMO, an empowerment tool for a wider audience that rarely needs watchmaking tools, and seems to be pretty accepting of the re-invention of traditional ones.

Perhaps connecting the "meta-data" stuff in X is a bit like powered compressors showing up on construction job sites where hand tools once ruled?

We'll see.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 15, 2011 at 8:01:17 pm

[Bill Davis] "It's no more surprising to me than a watch repair person needing a screwdriver with an almost microscopically small tip. Tools should be available to fit the task at hand.

I will note that in the larger world, very, VERY few toolboxes on the planet include a screwdriver that fine. Because the need is so specialized. "


Right. And that's why none of those smaller little tool boxes with their two screwdrivers would be said to contain a "robust" collection of screwdrivers.


[Bill Davis] "The modern NLE is DECREASINGLY a specialists tool. Apple understood that first. "

What robust hokum. ALL modern NLEs have more specialization tools than ever before, EXCEPT Apple. No one else has shown any inclination to follow.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


John BuckRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 16, 2011 at 2:08:52 am

Chris
Did you fix your volume 2 download? I checked with Apple and source file is OK
John



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:24:16 am

[Bill Davis] "In what way did they "lose sight" of pro users? Are you trying to argue that a sub-frame accuracy in edits, robust timecode support, a monster database under the hood and stuff like Roles are built for folks doing birthday party videos and the occasional low budget wedding?"

In the way FCPX lacks support for some complex workflows that FCP7 had -- most especially in high end film and broadcast, where there are no working amateurs by definition?

I get that the question of defining pro is very complicated, and a lot of the "pro" talk here comes back to a Justice Stewart-style sense of "I know it when I see it."

With that said, haven't we all agreed by now that FCPX may be appropriate for some "pro" workflows, but not for all?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Might Be An Interesting Read
by on Nov 15, 2011 at 4:35:01 pm

[Walter Soyka] I get that the question of defining pro is very complicated, and a lot of the "pro" talk here comes back to a Justice Stewart-style sense of "I know it when I see it."

I agree that the "pro" argument is both misleading and well-tread here in the forums.

On the other hand, I think that Apple has branded their product as "pro" and it's up to them to define what they mean and justify themselves.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

VIEW ALL   •   PRINT
Share on Facebook


FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]