FORUMS: list search recent posts

Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on Apr 30, 2018 at 12:54:22 pm

One of the Lumaforge NAB presentations:

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/2070-josh-beal-reconsidering-final...

Direct link to the video here:







- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on Apr 30, 2018 at 7:49:32 pm

What? No LA guys/gals debating this? I got a feeling this guys is NOT going to invited to Avid Connect next year! ;-)

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Visual Storyteller
https://vimeo.com/channels/1322525
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on Apr 30, 2018 at 9:09:59 pm

One can't help feeling that if, more than two thirds of the way through its probable lifecycle, you're still having to proselytise for a product to this degree to a particular market segment, then something is not quite fitting at a basic level.

There are many things I like and admire about FCP X but only the most starry-eyed enthusiast will try to dispute that it really hasn't taken off in the traditional NLE market.

And maybe that speaks to its very real and very impressive strengths, which are elsewhere.

Obviously there is no good reason from the point of view of most aspects of functionality that it's not competing at this level by this late point in its development, but perhaps we have to face the fact that some indefinable spark is missing.

Like most relationships, if the magic isn't there, it's probably never going to happen.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index


Andy Neil
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on Apr 30, 2018 at 9:32:23 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Obviously there is no good reason from the point of view of most aspects of functionality that it's not competing at this level by this late point in its development, but perhaps we have to face the fact that some indefinable spark is missing.
"


I don't think it's anything to do with FCPX at all. As a tool, it's remarkably capable. It's just that it's rollout pissed editors off so much that they many made their mind about it and haven't considered it since. And of those that have considered it or tried it, there's a portion that can't seem to alter how they think about putting a story together. They're entrenched in their mindset.

I find a lot of my peers that I talk to about X are still carrying around the perception that it just can't cut in a professional environment. They're legitimately surprised when I tell them it has the best multicam on the market in my opinion, that it's leagues faster than other NLEs at the rough cut stage and major structural changes to a cut are ridiculously simpler. The most grudgingly complimentary thing I hear about it (before I've talked to them about why I like it) is that it's good at organizing media. So, in the intervening years that FCPX has been on the market, most of the people I work with are still perceiving it from it's initial release. This isn't a fault of FCPX, it's the fault of prevailing amounts of carmudgeonry in the editing community.

FCPX is finding increased use in a lot of professional spaces, but unlike FCP7, editors who can cut FCPX can't be pulled from the Avid pool. They're too different. So while FCP7 could insert itself into high profile studio films because it used the same paradigm as Avid, FCPX doesn't have that luxury. It's the most complete NLE without a monthly cost attached to it which means it can find work in smaller, nimbler operations, but studios aren't concerned with that. They're concerned with the talent pool of editors available to them and pool of FCPX capable feature editors with credits who also cut FCPX is small and will remain small until they decide to pick it up on their own.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on Apr 30, 2018 at 9:44:55 pm

[Andy Neil] "I find a lot of my peers that I talk to about X are still carrying around the perception that it just can't cut in a professional environment. "

This is no doubt true. But can we really, at this very late stage, attribute all the blame exclusively to intransigent editors who refuse to see the light?

There must at some point be something about FCP X itself as an overall package that isn't chiming with enough users in this segment of the market.

There have been enough presentations and showcases and user stories and updates and general razzmatazz by this point that even if you're deeply sceptical you will have been made fully aware of the benefits.

So what is the missing ingredient?

At some stage we have to recognise that Apple themselves aren't succeeding in their sales pitch, surely?

Isn't that what Apple do? Marketing? Isn't that why they are richer by far than the gods on Olympus? Because of their ability to sell things to people?

What are they doing wrong?

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on Apr 30, 2018 at 10:47:55 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "But can we really, at this very late stage, attribute all the blame exclusively to intransigent editors who refuse to see the light?
"


This is the same group of people that broke out the Holy Hand Grenade when Avid added the smart tool, a relatively minor UI adjustment.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos


Return to posts index


Simon Ubsdell
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 11:27:36 am

[Andy Neil] "This is the same group of people that broke out the Holy Hand Grenade when Avid added the smart tool, a relatively minor UI adjustment."

While it is true that there is nothing you can do to shift the perceptions of a certain class of AVID editors, this argument is not as strong as it used to be.

Many "intransigents" migrated to FCP Legacy, and many then made the jump to Premiere. In other words while there is a tiny contingent that are not prepared to accept change, there is clearly a much larger class who don't have a problem with change in itself but to whom FCP X doesn't seem sufficiently appealing.

That being the case, it's Apple's fault for not making FCP X appealing enough to them ... arguably.

What's really missing from the FCP X picture in terms of this segment of the market is convincing peer to peer "marketing" - not to say it doesn't exist, but it has yet to achieve the tipping point and maybe never will for whatever reason.

Another part of the story is Apple itself.

Adobe made a big thing with Premiere of embedding itself in a number of high profile feature films projects (helped massively by the charismatic and talented Vashi Nedomansky) and the relationship was one where Adobe were rewriting the application on a day to day basis to accommodate requests from the editing teams.

And you simply cannot imagine that Apple in their current incarnation would ever consider being that accommodating.

Of course, Apple don't really care that much about any of this from a business point of view. They're presumably perfectly content with their success in other markets and don't need to go chasing this one. But I bet there's part of them that would still love the halo effect.

And talking of halo effects, perhaps that's also part of the story. The perception of a product is created as much (if not more) by the users that attach themselves to it as by any other form of marketing. Broadly speaking FCP X has attracted a type of user that doesn't necessarily shed lustre on the brand, but quite possibly has the opposite effect ...

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 6:02:14 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Broadly speaking FCP X has attracted a type of user that doesn't necessarily shed lustre on the brand, but quite possibly has the opposite effect ..."

Yup,

It’s a wonder it managed to eek out those 2.5 million paid seats.

(Dies anyone here know if Costco carries large tubs of “Luster Polish?” I’m asking for a friend...)

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 6:55:51 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] " But can we really, at this very late stage, attribute all the blame exclusively to intransigent editors who refuse to see the light?"

Speaking to FCPX in "Hollywood":

"all," "exclusively" - of course not. But substitute "most" and "primarily" - a resounding YES. After 7 years, the level hostility and misinformation is breathtaking.


Return to posts index


Simon Ubsdell
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 6:58:49 pm

[Jeff Markgraf] "After 7 years, the level hostility and misinformation is breathtaking."

Or alternatively there is a problem with the application or with Apple's positioning of it or both.

Not for me to adjudicate on that but it's a point worth making, I think.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 7:42:49 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Not for me to adjudicate on that"

And yet, here you are adjudicating...

Years of talking to lots of people in this town, and the response from the Never X crowd is pretty consistent:
Ill-informed and proud to have no interest in trying it out.

So, no, the point really isn't worth making. That point is past its "sell by" date.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 8:05:32 pm

[Jeff Markgraf] "And yet, here you are adjudicating..."

Not really.

It was an alternative hypothetical explanation to a phenomenon that could be interpreted in any number of different ways.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 10:44:35 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Or alternatively there is a problem with the application or with Apple's positioning of it or both.
"


Nope.

If people are making it work at ALL levels of production - successfully - all around the world. It's hard to argue that the problem lines in the programs inherent capabilities.

Literally millions of editors have figured the program out.

It's not the program - it's the nature of the EDITOR.

And that's not a judgement about that editors quality or capacity at all - but rather merely one about their personality and acceptance of change.

It's perhaps a bit like excellent winter athletes accepting or dismissing the snowboard over the skis they are used to using.

Changing from - or sticking with - what you know, says nothing about your athletic prowess. But it DOES say something about your willingness to investigate new ways of getting down the hill.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 11:40:07 pm

[Bill Davis] "Changing from - or sticking with - what you know, says nothing about your athletic prowess. But it DOES say something about your willingness to investigate new ways of getting down the hill."

I think there's also another related factor at play - especially when we are talking about facilities posting film and TV. Many of these shops, as well as editors, made the transition from Avid to FCP "legacy". For many that created a certain amount of upheaval. With FCPX, another - even more disruptive - shift was required. Since the first change was rough at times - and with X, that first decision ultimately proved to be wrong in the long term - facility managers and editors were/are reluctant to do it all over again. Shifting sideways to Premiere - or back to Media Composer - was simply the easiest choice. Simple matter of risk aversion.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 11:51:13 pm

[Bill Davis] "It's not the program - it's the nature of the EDITOR. "

id say its the nature of the industry, not the editor.

Why would an editor take the time to learn something new if he never gets to flex that new knowledge or no ones going to pay him to use his new skills?

I bet your ass if all of the sudden - every shop switched to X - Editors would figure it out very quickly - or be poor.


Return to posts index


Tony West
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 4:38:17 am

[Neil Goodman] "Why would an editor take the time to learn something new if he never gets to flex that new knowledge or no ones going to pay him to use his new skills?
"


Ask Beal why he did it.


Return to posts index

James Culbertson
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 4, 2018 at 3:16:03 am

[Neil Goodman] "I bet your ass if all of the sudden - every shop switched to X - Editors would figure it out very quickly - or be poor."

I was stuck on FCP7 for a couple of years after FCPX came out. But the minute a large Redmond, WA corporation brought me in to a group that used FCPX exclusively and paid me bucket loads of cash, you can bet I learned it in a week. That 2 year period, taught me the superiority of FCPX over Premiere, and I choose FCPX whenever I can preferentially. Simon should know that there are a lot of us out there.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 8:27:01 am
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on May 2, 2018 at 8:40:04 am

[Bill Davis] "If people are making it work at ALL levels of production - successfully - all around the world. It's hard to argue that the problem lines in the programs inherent capabilities."

I'm confused about your argument here, because on the one hand you are arguing for the wisdom of the market (the widespread adoption of FCP X outside Hollywood) and on the other hand you are ignoring the influence of the market and blaming a specific section of consumers for not making the switch.

If FCP X is self-evidently the best product at the best price with the best support (and so on), then market forces tell us that it should be the de facto choice everywhere, including Hollywood.

Whether because of Apple's positioning or because of the product's own lack of appeal or because of other factors, the market is not pushing the adoption of FCP X within this segment - and it's had seven years to try and make an impact here.

Something isn't right.

If I can't sell my product to a particular segment of the market after a significant period of trying, the problem isn't the foolishness of the customers I am targeting, it's my fault and/or the fault of my product.

Perhaps the efficiencies of FCP X just don't have enough of a practical appeal in every day terms within this sector. It's not that they haven't been recognised as efficiencies but rather that they are not perceived as sufficiently game-changing because they speak to edge "problems" rather than to core workflow needs - within this sector.

In other words the factors uniquely attractive about FCP X to the world outside Hollywood don't count for anything like as much within it - and other factors (delivered by other solutions) are more important and are the drivers of choice.

And a major difference is that within this sector the decisions are enterprise-driven, they're not driven by individual users. Hard-headed business choices are being made above the level of personal preference.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 8:46:04 am

So is Premiere making any REAL inroads into Hollywood editing? I’ve seen the PR around the movies that HAVE been cut with it, but it doesn’t seem like it’s done a great deal better than FCPX so far.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 12:49:11 pm

[Steve Connor] "So is Premiere making any REAL inroads into Hollywood editing? I’ve seen the PR around the movies that HAVE been cut with it, but it doesn’t seem like it’s done a great deal better than FCPX so far."

In general, that's true for the studio films. Except, of course, the users and films are much higher profile. (I don't mean that to disparage in any way the work done by the "Focus", "Whiskey" teams.) However, if you look at other numbers, like Sundance entries, Premiere Pro is strongly represented. I'm also pretty sure you'll find a lot more smaller shops (that cut TV shows) in LA that are running Premiere over FCPX.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 2:12:06 pm

[Steve Connor] "So is Premiere making any REAL inroads into Hollywood editing? I’ve seen the PR around the movies that HAVE been cut with it, but it doesn’t seem like it’s done a great deal better than FCPX so far.

"


Its used alot for marketing Hollywood features and TV - and alot of TV shows and indie films are using it.

Seems like Hollywood features have slowed down though. For example Deadpool 1 was done on Premiere - number 2, back to Avid.


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 3:10:46 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on May 2, 2018 at 5:59:51 pm

[Neil Goodman] "For example Deadpool 1 was done on Premiere - number 2, back to Avid."

Different editor and director.

OTOH:

https://www.provideocoalition.com/art-cut-billy-fox-ace-brave/

https://www.provideocoalition.com/aotc-mindhunter

https://www.provideocoalition.com/nab-2018-an-interview-with-the-post-produ...

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 12:34:46 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "If FCP X is self-evidently the best product at the best price with the best support (and so on), then market forces tell us that it should be the de facto choice everywhere, including Hollywood."

Group think is a powerful phenomenon that can overpower just about every other consideration.

[Simon Ubsdell] "Perhaps the efficiencies of FCP X just don't have enough of a practical appeal in every day terms within this sector."

Take this with a grain of salt. But I think the Hollywood world has a complicated relationship with "efficiency". The financial incentives are to only be as efficient as others doing the work are, and not significantly more efficient. Let's say hypothetically, you can cut a feature 15% faster on FCPX. Well that means you'll get paid less for the job. Note that turnaround times and speed are two different things. One can maintain turnaround time by condensing hours working at the project while still earning the same amount of money.

All this to say that I question "efficiency" as the primary motivating factor in the Hollywood world.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 12:52:18 pm

[Brett Sherman] "All this to say that I question "efficiency" as the primary motivating factor in the Hollywood world.
"


While I agree with this statement I don't think has anything to do with padding prices.

In a feature film any efficiancies produced by better timeline handling is trivial to the task at hand. On top of that feature film workflows already utilize many sorts of database management to organize the footage, dwarfing the abilities of FCPX ( or any other NLE) in that matter, especially with films dealing with large amounts of CG. Any modern NLE will do the job as long as it contributes to the "comfort" of the editor and director, and maximizing their comfort is where the efficiencies truly lie. Which is why Hollywood is often a technological backwater as far as editing goes - films were still being cut on upright Moviolas long after everyone else had switched to flatbeds because that's what certain editors were comfortable with.

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


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 4, 2018 at 2:29:23 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "If FCP X is self-evidently the best product at the best price with the best support (and so on), then market forces tell us that it should be the de facto choice everywhere, including Hollywood."

Well, in the absence of that annoying “market segmentation” thing

There is no “best vehicle.” Certainly not Across boats, planes, cars and motorcycles.

Clearly, the best cars will outsell the best motorcycles by orders of magnitude.

And a general purpose digital video manipulation tool can easily outsell a “commercial vehicle” NLE like AVID without that saying anything about the quality of the AVID software at all.

My concern has always been that the largest group of grumblers here are those truck drivers - annoyed that the smaller vehicle drivers are showing up on the loading docks and claiming they can move the packages just as well as the big rigs - and those truck drivers are pretty annoyed

And, of course, It remains to be seen if some robotic “goods movers” are on the horizon that will steal all those loads from all of us.

🤗
.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 4, 2018 at 5:56:55 am

[Bill Davis] "My concern has always been that the largest group of grumblers here are those truck drivers ...."

Possibly the best use of the automobile metaphor in this forum. I almost agree with you Bill. The image of a container strapped to a Smart Car lingers.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 7, 2018 at 11:22:28 pm

[Michael Gissing] "The image of a container strapped to a Smart Car lingers."

Yep,

That would be dumb. Just like those trying to park a Semi on the streets of a typical big-city downtown to move somebody into their new digs.

Typically those big rigs, have specialized routes into and out of the city - and the expectation is that when the goods get to the distribution center - fleets of smaller and more agile delivery vehicles are WAY better options for city delivery.

Maybe AVID on your laptop for generating the next generations video communications — will rise up and rule the future.

I wish them well on that path.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 4, 2018 at 6:08:29 am

[Bill Davis] "My concern has always been that the largest group of grumblers here are those truck drivers"

For the demo that kicked off this thread though it's clearly a trucker talking to other truckers about trucking. Josh made it very clear that his talk was limited to higher end, scripted TV/Film editing in major US markets.


Return to posts index

jeff arballo
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 7, 2018 at 3:30:19 pm

This is a great example with snowboarding. I work in the sports action industry, when the snowboard came out everyone on ski's laughed, calling it a gimmick, no shops would sell it, ski resorts banned it. It took a long time from it's original inception to get going, but man when it caught on it took over and dominated, now look at where the snowboard is today. Every kid wants a snowboard, ski's are for old people, at least that's what my nephews say.

FCPX is a great tool, If people don't want to use it or learn it it's there loss.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on Apr 30, 2018 at 10:29:12 pm

[Andy Neil] "FCPX doesn't have that luxury. It's the most complete NLE without a monthly cost attached to it which means it can find work in smaller, nimbler operations, but studios aren't concerned with that"

Hmmm... Not sure about that. I largely work in those smaller, nimbler operations. And with editors who are a lot younger than I. Not much interest among those users either. Ironically the handful of X users I know fall into the older, curmudgeonly class. Otherwise, it's mainly a Premiere Pro world from where I sit.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on Apr 30, 2018 at 11:03:29 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Ironically the handful of X users I know fall into the older, curmudgeonly class."

Interesting. That certainly hasn't been my experience. But I also wasn't suggesting that FCPX was the top choice for smaller operations. Only that it can make a lot of sense for those companies that don't want to rent seats at $50 a pop. I see a lot of premiere in smaller places too. It gained a lot of ground in H-wood in the space vacated by FCP7 once people moved on from it (some places are still clinging to FCP7).

The places I know of that currently use FCPX are: small to med sized post houses, 2 trailer houses, facilities that specialize in studio commercials, EPKs and such.

I wonder if the young editors you work with aren't interested in FCPX because they don't see it as a space they can advance in? I mean, I learned FCP and Media 100 in school back in the day, and I was VERY keen to learn Avid when I was starting out. Premiere Pro (another upstart) wouldn't have interested me because I knew Avid was king.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on Apr 30, 2018 at 11:27:43 pm

[Andy Neil] " 2 trailer houses,"

which Trailer houses?

I know Charlie is using it over there but curious where else?


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 1:36:08 am

[Neil Goodman] "which Trailer houses? "

I had a friend who said they were using it over at Trailer Park. I can't remember the name of the 2nd place because I was just doing a tour there, but they did a lot of Disney work.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 12:39:04 pm

[Andy Neil] "I had a friend who said they were using it over at Trailer Park."

he might have been rogue or doing a one off project - but Trailer Park is a Premiere shop - who dabbles in Avid for specific clients.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on Apr 30, 2018 at 11:47:55 pm
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on Apr 30, 2018 at 11:50:09 pm

[Andy Neil] "Only that it can make a lot of sense for those companies that don't want to rent seats at $50 a pop."

To be fair, that $50-$85 a month gets you much more than Premiere Pro. I think that's one of the strengths of the Adobe subscription, the included tools are accessible enough for generalists but deep enough for dedicated specialists - that, and the talent pool for people who know After Effects, Photoshop, Premiere Pro and Illustrator is quite large.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 12:10:59 am

[Andy Neil] "I wonder if the young editors you work with aren't interested in FCPX because they don't see it as a space they can advance in?"

I think the answer is multi-faceted. There is certainly the "chicken or the egg" factor. Your odds of getting freelance work are better if you know Premiere than if you [only] know FCPX. However, many of these folks also have an interest in VFX and gaming. So AE is a natural starting point - even before any NLE. Once you work with AE, then the step to Premiere is quick and easy.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on Apr 30, 2018 at 9:36:46 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "One can't help feeling that if, more than two thirds of the way through its probable lifecycle,"

For the sake of debate, how do you know this?

[Simon Ubsdell] "proselytise for a product to this degree to a particular market segment,"

So by your terms, Avid should not even be at NAB, for example, because everyone knows what they do? Locked in. What your saying is "oh well, seven years in and we're done. Pack it all up". Hell, Adobe has been at it a lot longer than that.

[Simon Ubsdell] "then something is not quite fitting at a basic level."

Maybe it says something about the editors at that level

[Simon Ubsdell] "the traditional NLE market."

Define this.

Alright, red meat and blood in the water! ;-)

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Visual Storyteller
https://vimeo.com/channels/1322525
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on Apr 30, 2018 at 9:50:27 pm

Well, as someone who works in Hollywood, and who onlines about 12 shows a year cut on FCX, one pretty high-profile (Diana: In Her Own Words), I can say that FCX does have a foothold in this town. A small one, but a foothold. Three production companies I know of use it for broadcast work.

One big issue is...well...the same that originally held back Avid. Getting people to switch and like it and use it. ALSO..it needs to solve a problem that we have that can't be solved by anything else. So far, Avid is used because it fits into the whole post-production pipeline rather well. It's when we need a problem solved in post, that Avid can't solve, that we look at alternatives. FCP Legacy filled the "we need this done cheaply" market...as well as indie filmmakers needing a good choice for editing, instead of begging/borrowing time on the company Avid. AND it had features that solved many issues...capturing DV native, composting on the timeline, CHEAP PLUGINS GALORE!

FCX does solve many post issues for a lot of people. And some in Hollywood. But not enough...not just yet. It might make more inroads when it solves more and more...and can better fit in with the existing post architecture (which with the help of third party apps, it does).

But yes, perceptions of FCX are a big factor. See, I think of it as a professional editing app but I STILL leave out the "P" when typing it out. Mainly habit.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on Apr 30, 2018 at 10:58:00 pm

I work in LA in trailers and promos - you would think this is where FCPX would really shine and be super adoptable, but when I try and spark conversations about it I'm usually met with raised eyebrows and sarcastic responses.

Most people simply don't have any interest or never looked further than the botched roll out. Most facilities managers and post supes wont give it the time of day and mot editors simply don't care - they cut on what the post house provides - beyond that they just want to go home at a decent hour and see their families.

I think the roll out is what ultimately killed its chances here. I also think the audio capabilites and flexibilities have handicapped it for alot of shortform editors with the lack of a mixer or true bussing.

As stated before we are 7 years in, FCPX is no doubt a fully capable NLE that does a couple things better than the competition yet still no one over here is taking it seriously for whatever reason.

Cue all the people that will ay Hollywood is such a small niche and it doesnt matter - well hate to break it to you but corporate is also a small niche, so is weddings, so is v-logs - Hollywood just happens to be a small niches that gets the most eyeballs.

I also don't believe that X is on a 10 year cycle and their just going to kill it and start over again. Hopefully years 10-20 see some major growth or it will continue to serve its current niche and serve it well. who really knows?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 12:14:47 am

I think the fact that FCPX still doesn't have a good answer to collaborative workflows is also a hindrance to adoption in this market.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 12:26:10 am

[Oliver Peters] "I think the fact that FCPX still doesn't have a good answer to collaborative workflows is also a hindrance to adoption in this market."

Maybe but PPRO's was pretty lame at it too up until the latest versions (haven't tried it out myself yet - were still on 2017)

At work now - we have the most ridiculous "shared" workflow ever using PPRO. All the media is on a ISIS and then basically just an Editor exports their latest cut as a PPRO project and then if your the lucky one that picks it up for revisions or cutdowns you import that timeline into your current project. Then repeat until a cut is locked. Its a pain and gets very messy.

I also think alot of it has to do with prospective jobs. If I was in LA and trying to get into TV and Film, it would be dumb to ignore Avid, and secondary PPRO. I aslo find people pay Avid editors higher rates for freelance jobs then jobs on PPRO, and the very very few freelance listings I have seen for FCPX (non bordcast/film) were super duper low. Could have something to do with it too.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 1:39:20 am

[Neil Goodman] "Maybe but PPRO's was pretty lame at it too up until the latest versions (haven't tried it out myself yet - were still on 2017)

At work now - we have the most ridiculous "shared" workflow ever using PPRO. All the media is on a ISIS and then basically just an Editor exports their latest cut as a PPRO project and then if your the lucky one that picks it up for revisions or cutdowns you import that timeline into your current project. Then repeat until a cut is locked. Its a pain and gets very messy. "


You need to get current. Our shop has 7 edit stations. All projects and media live on the NAS. Any editor can open any project at any time. The first editor to open a project has write permission to it. Subsequent editors who open it at the same time have read-only permission. You can toggle write control as needed among the users. You can also now have multiple projects open at once (like FCP7) and copy & paste/drag & drop between them. Yes, importing sequences via Media Browser is also still an option.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 2:35:40 am

[Oliver Peters] "You need to get current. Our shop has 7 edit stations. All projects and media live on the NAS. Any editor can open any project at any time. The first editor to open a project has write permission to it. Subsequent editors who open it at the same time have read-only permission. You can toggle write control as needed among the users. You can also now have multiple projects open at once (like FCP7) and copy & paste/drag & drop between them. Yes, importing sequences via Media Browser is also still an option.
"


I think we are gearing up for it 2018.1 at least - we all just had our OS updated to Sierra from El Capitan, lol. Surprised these old boxes even run Sierra. Looking forward to the new stuff for sure.


Return to posts index

Dean Harrington
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 5, 2018 at 5:22:12 am

The only thing I can add to this discussion is I started on final cut #1 through studio 3 and then, went on to use Final cut X. I'm in the process of using Resolve more and more as of 13 and 14 for edits, color, and audio. Last year, I had to use my old copy of Studio 3 on a particular section of a project that needed very delicate audio scrubbing ... it succeeded where Final Cut X did not.

Dean Harrington DCS CCVS


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 12:43:28 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "One can't help feeling that if, more than two thirds of the way through its probable lifecycle, you're still having to proselytise for a product to this degree to a particular market segment, then something is not quite fitting at a basic level."

Why should should they waste overmuch time proselytizing it at all?

They grew from 2 million to 2.5 millions seats last year. At $299 (presuming nobody at all bought Motion or Compressor) - that's mathematically just shy of 150 million dollars in FCP X revenue.

If we speculate and imagine that Premier ALSO has 2 million active seats - (clearly not exclusively working pros because no stat I've ever seen says there are anywhere near that many actual shop based Pro editors out there - but this is speculation only!) and average between full subscribers and NLE only folks in rental revenue -say $35 a seat? They mathematically generated $70 million bucks, at best, last year? Not a bad business at all, but those two numbers are WAY far apart.

So X, as it sits RIGHT now - is probably a lot more profitable than it's competitors.

Now if X stops selling tomorrow - and Adobe keeps people on the rental hook for years - it's a BIG win for Adobe.

But who wants to bet on an Apple collapse like that? Anyone?

So what possible reason would Apple have to switch to a heavy marketing emphasis on the movie Biz?

They likely make significantly more revenue than the competition already - simply by sticking to the marketing path they already are on.

At the end of the day, these are businesses. Folks area happy when a product makes money. And the more the better?

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 1:44:08 am

[Bill Davis] " and average between full subscribers and NLE only folks in rental revenue -say $35 a seat? They mathematically generated $70 million bucks, at best, last year?"

Your math is off. $35/month x 12 month/year = $420/year/seat. 2,000,000 seats = $840,000,000/year.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 3:32:34 am

You are correct!

I always have difficulty with the concept of being charged 12 times a year for software...It's not natural to my brain.

And wouldn't THAT kind of revenue results be huge news on an imaginary Adobe Earnings call!

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 4:32:13 am

All previous reasons given for the lack of full fledged adoption of FCPX are valid and there's also the confluence of the FCPX years of release and the perceived drop in quality of the overall Apple computer brand. The trashcan came in with a loud thud in 2013 and we're only now getting it's replacement on the market.

The days in which the aura of Apple releases would create huge buzz and excitement at Moscone Center died with Steve.

Windows 10 Pro
i7-5820k CPU
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970
Blackmagic Decklink 4k Mini Monitor
Adobe CC 2018
Renders/cache: Samsung SSD 950 Pro x2 in Raid 0
Media: Samsung SSD 960 PRO PCIe NVMe M.2 2280
Media: OWC Thunderbay 4 x 2 Raid 0 mirrored with FreeFileSync


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 4:45:24 am

[greg janza] "Windows 10 Pro
i7-5820k CPU
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970
Blackmagic Decklink 4k Mini Monitor
Adobe CC 2018
Renders/cache: Samsung SSD 950 Pro x2 in Raid 0
Media: Samsung SSD 960 PRO PCIe NVMe M.2 2280
Media: OWC Thunderbay 4 x 2 Raid 0 mirrored with FreeFileSync
"


Based on your signature gear lineup - I can kinda see why you'd be suggesting that.

You've obviously made your allegiance bets.

As have I.

Time will tell who gains the most benefits from breaking one way or the other.

😊

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 12:46:15 pm

[Bill Davis] "You've obviously made your allegiance bets.

As have I."


I own 2 Mac workstations (2010 & 2013) but agree with Greg. I'm highly critical of Apple but I still use them exclusively for my work, and if they ever come out with a new workstation I'm a likely buyer - so where does that put me allegiance wise? It's not all "identity politics" - sometimes it's just about the facts.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 5:49:34 pm

[Herb Sevush] "so where does that put me allegiance wise? I"

Wherever you wish to be Herb.
Its self-identification. Not something forced on you.

If you choose to represent yourself in discussions - or billboard a signature that identifies you as platform agnostic, your posts and opinions will likely be seen through that light.

If not, then not.

Simple as that.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 6:14:28 pm

[Bill Davis] "If you choose to represent yourself in discussions - or billboard a signature that identifies you as platform agnostic, your posts and opinions will likely be seen through that light. If not, then not. "

I'm platform indifferent, not agnostic. I think the whole concept of having allegiances to appliances made by multi-national corporations is silly and unproductive and I wouldn't want to label myself with any of them, any more than I would wear a Nike swoosh on my clothes.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 10:53:32 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I'm platform indifferent, not agnostic. I think the whole concept of having allegiances to appliances made by multi-national corporations is silly and unproductive and I wouldn't want to label myself with any of them, any more than I would wear a Nike swoosh on my clothes.
"


That's fine.

We're different.

For decades, Sony's R&D and thinking drove much of my business success. I came to depend on them for solutions I could afford and what would best leverage my budgets and time into DOLLARS in return.

They took me through decades of success early in my career.

Then Apple took their place as my premiere vendor as the digital era dawned. Once again, they kept producing devices, technologies and innovations that let me make more money with less effort.

In both cases, the brand loyalty helped me thrive in that most of what I already owned, I didn't have to re-learn and re-purchase over and over and over again.

YMMV.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 2:26:57 am

[Bill Davis] "For decades, Sony's R&D and thinking drove much of my business success. I came to depend on them for solutions I could afford and what would best leverage my budgets and time into DOLLARS in return. They took me through decades of success early in my career"

And then they hit a bad spell and if you didn't get off that merry-go-round it would have cost you. The thing is you never know when that bad spell is coming.

[Bill Davis] "In both cases, the brand loyalty helped me thrive"

Why be loyal to them when they're not loyal to you? Buy their stuff when it makes sense, don't when it doesn't, but never fall in love with a corporation because I'll guarantee it's not requited.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 3:38:17 am

[Herb Sevush] "Why be loyal to them when they're not loyal to you? Buy their stuff when it makes sense, don't when it doesn't, but never fall in love with a corporation because I'll guarantee it's not requited."

Having beta tested for Sony, Yamaha, dSP and Fairlight I can assure you that the bigger the company, the less personal care they give. I most enjoyed my relationship with small nimble companies like dSP and Fairlight although I did manage to get inside Yamaha pro audio on the development of the O2R mixer. When it comes to Apple and Microsoft you might have a close relationship with someone on the inside but small cogs and big wheels means you are not their primary concern. I chose Apple when they made hardware and software that suited and dropped them when they didn't. Same with Sony & Yamaha.

What happens in Hollywood and the broadcasters like BBC still makes its way into the consciousness of the film community down here at the bottom of Australia. Of course we will choose what works for us but the disproportional influence of what happens in Hollywood is felt everywhere. We should pay more attention to Bollywood given the sheer quantity of that market.


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 5:28:09 am

[greg janza] "The trashcan came in with a loud thud in 2013 "

I figure some of that was because folks couldn't afford it? It was like 3k without a monitor I seem to recall.

The iMac Pro is 5k before you add anything to it. I know folks who want one but don't know any that own one.
If it doesn't jump off the shelves I don't believe it's all about people hating it.

People's wages haven't kept up with these high end boxes or a lot of other things in life.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 6:44:34 am

I know lots of people using FCPX and not one of them cares about what they use in Hollywood, it doesn't seem to have affected global sales at all.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 12:07:20 pm

[Steve Connor] "I know lots of people using FCPX and not one of them cares about what they use in Hollywood, it doesn't seem to have affected global sales at all."

Bingo! Give this man a prize. Success of a product does not hinge on what is happening in Hollywood (except for Avid, a company that has put the vast majority of it's egg into one basket, and successfully so). I know it's a shocker to some, but the vast majority of us editors outside of Hollywood don't really care what Hollywood uses. We have to deal with our workflow and clients right in front of us (or sitting behind us).

The guy in this video is simply doing an informational seminar on another workflow and his experiences with that alternative workflow. Using the word "proselytize" is way off base and a bit comical. Is all marketing "proselytizing"?

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Visual Storyteller
https://vimeo.com/channels/1322525
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 12:39:13 pm

[Scott Witthaus] " Is all marketing "proselytizing"?"

Yes.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 12:37:39 pm

[Steve Connor] "I know lots of people using FCPX and not one of them cares about what they use in Hollywood, it doesn't seem to have affected global sales at all."

Quite.

But given that the title of this thread is "Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood", perhaps that's a little off the point ;-)

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 12:50:06 pm

I think it's easy to say "nobody cares about what they do in Hollywood", but that simply isn't true. Part of it is aspirational for new editors. "I want to use what _ _ _ is using". That may be feature films, but it also could be a favorite YouTube "video star".

On a more concrete level, it's informative, because many of us use the same techniques and workflows in projects that have nothing to do with big-screen entertainment. For instance, if I work with shared storage using FCPX or PPro, then I'd like to know what pitfalls were encountered or workflow decisions were made by someone in Hollywood using those same tools. That's important, not because they are in Hollywood, but simply because they have a bigger megaphone. Thus their story gets out into the public space and is more visible than a smaller market editor somewhere else.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 1:09:11 pm
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on May 1, 2018 at 1:09:36 pm

[Oliver Peters] "On a more concrete level, it's informative, because many of us use the same techniques and workflows in projects that have nothing to do with big-screen entertainment. For instance, if I work with shared storage using FCPX or PPro, then I'd like to know what pitfalls were encountered or workflow decisions were made by someone in Hollywood using those same tools. "

Exactly.

And this is why the work that Adobe did with Vashi and others was so effective.

It got the message out there (to sceptics like me!) that not only was Premiere up to the task of handling intensive/complex workflows, but more importantly that Adobe were not just listening but actively engaged in coming up with solutions to specific problems raised by a demanding group of editors.

Apple haven't succeeded in conveying a similar message.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 1:19:07 pm

[Oliver Peters] "For instance, if I work with shared storage using FCPX or PPro, then I'd like to know what pitfalls were encountered or workflow decisions were made by someone in Hollywood using those same tools."

I work in a shared environment with those software packages. We have a Terrablock and are moving over to Lumaforge. Not once did I consider or look to see what a Hollywood feature used, as it had no relevance to my workflow. What I did do, however, was ask colleagues and various forums for information and advice. A quick call from Bob Zelin was incredibly helpful.

[Oliver Peters] "That's important, not because they are in Hollywood, but simply because they have a bigger megaphone"

I don't want a megaphone. See my reference to Bob Zelin above.

[Oliver Peters] " Part of it is aspirational for new editors. "I want to use what _ _ _ is using"."

So if it's a shi**y movie, do you stay away from the workflow or software? ;-)

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Visual Storyteller
https://vimeo.com/channels/1322525
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 1:51:06 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Not once did I consider or look to see what a Hollywood feature used, as it had no relevance to my workflow."

I would disagree. For example, if I'm using a given storage product and having NLE media performance issues, but I read about another complex workflow using the same NLE+shared storage - and they didn't have media issues - I want to know why and what system they were using. It informs my choice. It might not be the deciding factor, but it adds more data.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 7:47:29 pm

[greg janza] "The trashcan came in with a loud thud in 2013"

Where do you guys get this nonsense? No thud at the places where I work, or among the people I know.
A small but vocal group (mostly online) chanting, "but, muh slots!" is just background noise for lots of people happily doing real work while waiting (way to long) for an updated machine.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 8:27:22 pm

[Jeff Markgraf] "A small but vocal group (mostly online) chanting, "but, muh slots!" is just background noise for lots of people happily doing real work while waiting (way to long) for an updated machine."

As someone who disliked the design of the Tcan when it first came out but then went out and bought one when I needed a new Mac workstation, I can say without hesitation that it is indeed a Thud. Yes you can work with it (if your video cards haven't caught fire) but it is a dead end investment. Which is why Tim Cook came out and admitted that it was a total failure and that Apple was going to relegate the trash-can to the trash can when bringing out their next workstation, which is why you have been waiting (way to long) for an updated machine.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 8:40:46 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on May 1, 2018 at 8:43:19 pm

[Jeff Markgraf] "just background noise for lots of people happily doing real work while waiting (way to long) for an updated machine"

Well... Except for corrupt renders, damaged GPUs, and mediocre performance with software other than Apple's. And add to that, Thunderbolt sockets, where the cables easily pull out or disconnect with the most minimal movement of the machine.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 1:00:07 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on May 1, 2018 at 1:03:25 pm

[Bill Davis] "And wouldn't THAT kind of revenue results be huge news on an imaginary Adobe Earnings call!"

Since we are being hypothetical - let's say it's only 1/4 of that. 500,000 users. That would be $210,000,000/year.

Now compare FCPX at 2.5 million users at $300 over the course of 7 years. A theoretical maximum of $750,000,000 to date, for an average of $107,142,857/year.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics! ☺

But... Here's some actual info:

http://news.adobe.com/press-release/corporate/adobe-delivers-record-revenue...

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Paul Golden
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 4:12:35 pm

I’ll offer two observations: one about Hollywood and another about Apple.


Hollywood post houses are notoriously cautious about workflow changes and are extremely reticent to switch to anything that might cause them some pain. I‘ve worked in VFX for 30 years and it always amazes me when I see shops clinging to approaches that would be solved by switching platforms. The collaboration tools are something that Avid has built in over FCPX, but are not so super duper that you couldn‘t replicate a workable solution with FCPX if so inclined. Which brings me to Apple.

Apple‘s M.O. is to roll out features when they feel they‘re ready for prime-time, and not before, to the general dismay of a lot of folks who want it all now. The initial roll-out of FCPX was filled with holes and dead ends, but pointed the way to a great new way of working. A lot of people got hung up on what wasn‘t supported on day one and lost interest.

My guess is that as Gig10Ethernet and TB3 become ubiquitous and affordable, Apple will focus on collaboration as a logical extension of that. The recent color updates and titling updates were huge and I“d be surprised if the collaboration tools didn‘t make an appearance before long.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 8:48:29 pm

[Paul Golden] "My guess is that as Gig10Ethernet and TB3 become ubiquitous and affordable, Apple will focus on collaboration as a logical extension of that. "

I don't believe they see video collaboration as a market for themselves any longer. Just like the audio team behind Logic doesn't see a market in audio post for their software. The core customer for FCPX is most likely the individual user, where collaboration has little application. 10GigE and TB3 on the iMacPros probably has little to do with the needs of video professionals collaborating. There are plenty of other professional users in other industries where those technologies are also important.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 11:11:45 pm

[Oliver Peters] "10GigE and TB3 on the iMacPros probably has little to do with the needs of video professionals collaborating. There are plenty of other professional users in other industries where those technologies are also important.
"


Sure, but just like with PCs, ALL this stuff is primarily developed for the Gamers. They are the constituency with the REAL economic clout out there.

We high end video guys just ride on their coattails because there are LOTS and LOTS of them - and remarkably few of us.

Look at the design aesthetic of GPU card marketing. Not exactly "buttoned down" designs for silicon ghetto workers targeting render farms. That stuff is built to look SEXY in a magazine ad aimed at a 12 year old.
The design aesthetic is basically Wolverine just strolled past that graphic card - and was pissed off!





Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Dominic Deacon
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 7:23:32 am

Gtx cards are aggressively marketed at gamers. Nvidia expects pros to be using their quadro line. The looks aren't that important to me but if they are for you then these cards are nicely buttoned down and pro looking.



Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 3:20:21 pm

Thanks for posting the clip Oliver I really enjoyed it.

What's interesting about it is that Beal is an "insider". He is Avid user and makes his money mostly with that tool. He doesn't really need X or to even talk about it. He's already at the top of his game in that arena . He also fits into Oliver's description of an older industry vet.

He admits that Avid is the "king player" in Hollywood but he's not totally satisfied with it and he explains why.

He talks about having to think differently to use X and we all know that.

He's talking to people in Hollywood doing the type of work that he does that might not know about the tools that X has. He's challenging people who are likely his colleagues to take another look. That's all.

His example are good, like "Dialogue Cheats" ("Best way I've found") "Music browser"

He doesn't want people to switch to it if they don't want to, he's just saying "did you know you could do this with it?"

When I would see a letter carrier driving their vehicle with the steering wheel on the right side I would think to myself, "that's got to be weird to get used to since your personal car you have been driving for years is the opposite"

I'm sure once they get used to it the mail delivery is much faster than if they were on the left side.

FCPX................it's a letter carrier's vehicle : )


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 6:15:15 pm

[Tony West] "He doesn't want people to switch to it if they don't want to, he's just saying "did you know you could do this with it?""

I think part of the original post was to point out the fact - that after 7 years - someone of his stature has to have a demo and tell people," hey look we can do that too, and it might work better for you. "

That's part of the problem - why after 7 years do people still doubt FCPX as a viable tool?


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 6:55:52 pm
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on May 1, 2018 at 8:10:32 pm

[Neil Goodman] "That's part of the problem - why after 7 years do people still doubt FCPX as a viable tool?"

It is indeed a very interesting conundrum.

Anyone who has been a regular here over the years (even Herb!) will readily admit that FCP X is an entirely viable solution for most if not all editing scenarios.

So what is the problem? Why has it failed to take off in the traditional environment? Because it remains unarguable that it hasn't taken off, and that FCP Legacy puts it to shame in that department.

I'm going to be contentious and hazard one guess - though the reality is that there must be a whole number of interlocking factors.

I'm going to say "timecode".

In many top end scenarios you can probably get away without agonising about timecode, but if you do need to worry about it, there's no question that FCPX lets you down. It's just not even remotely as good as the competition.

Some of us, some of the time, need this level of timecode feedback, instantly available, without fuss or fiddle.




The competition provides it - FCP X falls far short.

I would stress that I'm not in any way suggesting that this one thing is a deciding factor, but it's definitely one of several.

FCP X doesn't think this stuff is important. To those few to whom it is important, that feels like a kick in the teeth.

And while we're at it, whatever happened to Gang Sync and true Replace Edit?

Sometimes these things are mission critical. If you're not an editor to whom that applies, I can only say, "Lucky, lucky you."

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 8:45:17 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I'm going to say "timecode"."

One of my biggest feature requests for FCPX is a proper Timecode window that has multiple lines of which I can choose exactly whats displayed and what I used to seeing in Avid.

Looks like Premiere Pro just got one finally. Looking forward to when our facility updates to the newest version.


Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 9:46:54 pm

One great thing about moving from FCP - and I stopped at 7 - is that you can move to using a PC. I'm mostly retired now, but after FCP7 I used Edius then PPro CS6 and now Resolve 15, all on various generations of the box next to me. I can update the machine or any part of it whenever I want. I updated my GPU from a 460 to a 960 a while back, and now that I read that Resolve does a lot on the GPU I can just slot in a 1080 Ti, maybe. And the box has lots of useful connections and slots in the back so that I can add or remove functionality.

I don't need machines from the stone age - 2010 and 2013 are so last year (!) Herb, sorry. I can't think why Hollywood or anywhere else would want to stick with old limited hardware.

Bernie


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 9:44:41 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Anyone who has been a regular here over the years (even Herb!) will readily admit that FCP X is an entirely viable solution for most if not all editing scenarios."

Has it come to this, that I am now relegated to "even Herb."

Where is Aindreas when I need him?

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


Return to posts index

Scott Thomas
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 5:54:16 am

Hey, that's a step up from Even Stevens...


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 1, 2018 at 11:18:19 pm

[Neil Goodman] "That's part of the problem - why after 7 years do people still doubt FCPX as a viable tool?
"


Because if you want to speed and the enhanced productivity that X can give you - you have to ADAPT to it.

It's not going to adapt to you.

And most video editors feel (as much as they grouse) that the way they already work is just fine, thank you very much.

The danger may be that in a few years, if one set of editors is ACTUALLY getting the job done in significantly less time and are significantly less stressed out than another team - that MAY be a critical factor.

Or not.

Maybe you will work the entire rest of your career, doing things exactly the same way you do them right now.

And if you're happy with that - you're all set.

Nobody knows if some hungry guy or gal will EVER snatch work from you because they figured out how to do the same thing you do - only faster and easier.

It may be a hedge you NEVER need.

Or not.

Nobody knows.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 12:02:18 am

[Bill Davis] "Because if you want to speed and the enhanced productivity that X can give you - you have to ADAPT to it."

I really dont think thats it.

I think its availability and not much else.

Most editors in the Hollywood system dont pick the software unless your a hotshot feature editor working on tentpole films.

If the shops switched - the editors would too - simple as that IMO.

Look at at all the Avid/ FCP 7 guys that had to go to PPRO basically overnight. It seemed to work out. IMO FCPX isnt that hard to wrap your head around.

Events/Vs Bins - Keywords/VS Reels&markers and a timeline thats stuck in ripple - until you override. Those are the biggest differences - the rest is well....editing.


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 3:44:39 am

[Neil Goodman] "If the shops switched - the editors would too - simple as that IMO."

I've always believed it's a simple matter of market forces at play.

If the majority of post houses and in-house media departments in my market had been early adopters of FCPX and had stayed committed to it over the years I would primarily be a FCPX editor today.

Windows 10 Pro
i7-5820k CPU
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970
Blackmagic Decklink 4k Mini Monitor
Adobe CC 2018
Renders/cache: Samsung SSD 950 Pro x2 in Raid 0
Media: Samsung SSD 960 PRO PCIe NVMe M.2 2280
Media: OWC Thunderbay 4 x 2 Raid 0 mirrored with FreeFileSync


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 12:11:55 am

Heres a job posting I just saw for FCPX - this first one Ive seen in weeks.

LA Based Promo Company seeking both Non-Union Editor and AE medium-long term positions on 1-week commitments asap.

On-site 9am-7pm near LAX airport

Editor - Freelance Rate, $350-$450/10
PREFERRED: FCPX Experience or willing to spend 2-3 days learning at reduced rate (we’ll pay you to go slow).
MUST: Must have edited network promos and have examples. I.e. you watch the entire show, and with our creative directors, come up with the best direction for premise trailers. We cut everything from social content to full length broadcast specials.


So this is about 400 less than the going rate for an averege promo editor. If your in demand your getting well over that.

Might be why we dont see that many people dropping everything to learn it. Just a thought.


Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 11:57:54 am

"MUST: Must have edited network promos and have examples. I.e. you watch the entire show, and with our creative directors, come up with the best direction for premise trailers. We cut everything from social content to full length broadcast specials."

Do promotions producers in the US really pay for editors to sit and watch the show with them?

I made promotions for around 15 years on and off for the BBC and we certainly wouldn't have done that. We were very happy for editors to have ideas, and for them to edit quickly, but we were the producers. The editors at the BBC were a precious resource - the good ones anyway - and would be off doing something completely different as soon as we went away.

Bernie


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 2:17:24 pm

[Bernard Newnham] "Do promotions producers in the US really pay for editors to sit and watch the show with them?
"


Not that I know of - I think the post was implying that you'd watch/ breakdown the show on your own (and yes, be paid for that time) - and then discuss with the creative director the best ways to move forward.


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 4:34:14 am

[Neil Goodman] " that after 7 years - someone of his stature has to have a demo and tell people," hey look we can do that too, and it might work better for you. "
"


Because so many people don't know about it. Many have never used X. I speak with people all the time about it and most have never tried it.

[Neil Goodman] "why after 7 years do people still doubt FCPX as a viable tool?"

Because they don't know what they are talking about. They are working with a program that is working for them and they don't have a reason to try something different.

Avid wasn't completely working for Beal, so he gave X a try and found it very "viable".


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 2:21:14 pm

[Tony West] "Because they don't know what they are talking about. They are working with a program that is working for them and they don't have a reason to try something different."

Thats my point - and thank you for punctuating it.

Editors need a reason to switch - a bunch of people saying "hey look its faster", month after month for the last 7 years obviously hasn't made a difference to them or overridden the bad rep it got at the start.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 4:33:45 pm

Editors are notorious for resisting change. And notorious for poo-pooing things outside their own comfort level and workflow. Perhaps this is the reason Resolve, as an editor, fades into the distance after each “incredible” NAB. Looks good in demo mode but who is actually going to leave their Avid to use it for heavy lifting? Not many, I would bet.

So we have about a half a dozen editors here (out of what, maybe 3 dozen consistently active members in this forum?) that question the acceptance of FCPX in Hollywood. I highly doubt Apple cares. They see a great big world outside of Hollywood and the US where the product seems to be doing better than the rest.

I would also bet that “collaboration” is another high “volume” topic that most editors have no need for. Personally I am grateful that I don’t have to collaborate with anyone on my storytelling work, but that’s just me. My collaboration needs are in sending out work to CC and audio. That’s what I want to be seamless and still edit in X. Just my humble opine. Hollywood has theirs, as we can tell.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Visual Storyteller
https://vimeo.com/channels/1322525
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 6:26:04 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Editors are notorious for resisting change."

This is a time-worn cliché that is easily falsified by the massive take-up of FCP Legacy ... without which this forum (among others things) would not be here today.

[Scott Witthaus] "I highly doubt Apple cares. They see a great big world outside of Hollywood and the US where the product seems to be doing better than the rest."

However the subject of this thread is the take-up of FCP X in Hollywood, so while this might be true it's also not relevant to the discussion.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 6:52:51 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "o while this might be true it's also not relevant to the discussion."

Since when did we EVER keep to the subject of the discussion?


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 9:14:16 pm

Thanks Simon. Point well taken.

FCP Legacy gave the “traditional editor” (your words) a whole new level of competition. It did 80% of what a MC system could do (and then some) and a really cheap price point. It wasn’t really that different. The big complaint from the “traditional editor” about FCP-L was “its so cheap now every college kid can do what we do”. The change came when “traditional editors” and their shops started getting their collective a**es kicked by these “college kids”.

Avid DS was a system that could run rings around MC and Symph and the biggest complaint from the “traditional editor” was “it’s not like MC. I don’t want to have to learn it”. Trust me, I was there.

And now the “traditional editor” who used FCP-L or MC has the same complaints about X. I have heard network sports editors say, “yeah, it looks great and may be better, but I just don’t want to have to learn it so don’t talk to me about it”. The reason X stands out is because it’s different and many folks simply don’t want to try something new, even it can make their workflow better. What they have works. And that’s all well and good. I am sure some movies in Hollywood are still being cut on very old Avid systems (Meridien, anyone?). And why not? You can’t force change.

It’s all cool. Change is not easy. We all resist it in some way. Doing my time in academia I constantly see this with faculty.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Visual Storyteller
https://vimeo.com/channels/1322525
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 2, 2018 at 10:58:49 pm

[Neil Goodman] "Thats my point - and thank you for punctuating it.

Editors need a reason to switch - a bunch of people saying "hey look its faster", month after month for the last 7 years obviously hasn't made a difference to them or overridden the bad rep it got at the start."


You are actually making MY point. In order to have a "reason" you need to know about the reason. That's what he's doing. He's trying to reach folks who might not know about what he's pointing out. If they already knew what he was saying there would be no reason to tell them.

I think you and some others feel like most editors are paying attention to forums like this and sitting around constantly taking about different NLE's. I almost never hear anybody doing that. I convinced people to try X either by showing them tools or telling them about it. At no time did any of those folks say "I already knew that".

I tried X because I saw videos online (like this one) showing different tools. There are over 8 thousand people that have seen that clip in a couple of days.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 3, 2018 at 1:56:33 am

I agree with you, I was trying to make the same point, that people aren’t educated about it, sorry that didn’t come through clearer. I too don’t know any other editors personally that browse forums. This and some Facebook groups are the only forums I’m in, and this is the only place I ever come to on the cow.


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 3, 2018 at 7:29:55 am

In Belgium, somewhere in March 2014 I think, (long before 10.3, which would have made even more impression) I gave a demo of FCPX to a group of industry professionals and even some ex-teachers from school.
They recognised me and told me before the event: "We're just here to see the stuff about the new Mac Pro. You can try and convince us about FCPX, but we hate it, we tried it, we hate it." I just smiled, not a lot you can say to that.

I did a demo of FCPX, and afterwards they asked me all kinds of specifics about the program. A year later (because in education they had to get every budget thing approved etc), they asked me to give them a 3-evening workshop to teach them FCPX, which they completely switched to.

So yeah. A lot of people only know the program from inception and never gave it another look. It was a disastrous launch by Apple.
But people who see the program in action by someone who really knows it, and takes a couple of hours to show them correctly, instead of them trying it and just being confused and frustrated, does make a world of difference.

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 3, 2018 at 12:21:15 pm

[Neil Goodman] "I was trying to make the same point, that people aren’t educated about it, sorry that didn’t come through clearer."

OTOH - the simple reason could be that very few editors actually care. After all, if you are a committed After Effects or Pro Tools user, it's unlikely that Fusion, Nuke, Logic, or Nuendo (respectively) would hold that much interest for you.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
on May 3, 2018 at 4:18:32 pm

[Neil Goodman] "Editors need a reason to switch - a bunch of people saying "hey look its faster", month after month for the last 7 years obviously hasn't made a difference to them or overridden the bad rep it got at the start."

I'll riff on this a second and say that a "reason to switch" typically needs to be something so broken in their current workflow that they are actively looking for alternatives. Someone trying to sell them a solution to a problem they don't have (or don't think they have) isn't likely to get very far. This is why the comparisons to FCP Legend's adoption rate are so fraught with holes. It's not that 'X is so different it scares people' it's that circumstances that existed in the early-to-mid 2000s don't exist today.

With that being said, I agree that large swath of the editing community doesn't follow every update to every NLE so I'm not surprised that FCP X is still feeling the effects of the not-so-great launch in 2011 (as they say, "You don't get a second change to make a first impression"). So I think there is a need for education/getting the word out there about how things have changed, though there's no point in being heavy handed about it. If the people you are talking to are receptive, great. If not, don't waste time trying to badger/brow beat them into agreeing with you. It won't work and it will likely just add to the negative association they already have with X.

I still run into people that complain about how horrible Avid is because they were wronged by Avid in 2003 or what a POS Windows is even though they haven't touched it since Windows ME. It is what it is.

And it's not like editors are the only people like this. Anyone that has spent time, money, effort, etc., on something (as a professional, hobbyist, amateur, etc.,) is likely to have a strong opinion on what they think works vs what they think doesn't work (or doesn't work as well). For example, I recently did a bit of DIY work on some hardscaping and in my Googling came across a number of very spirited discussions about whether or not you should use deck screws or nails (or a combination of both) when building a deck.

I really liked the realistic, pragmatic approach that Josh Beal took in his demo. I think if we need more demos like that and less tribal pontificating.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 2, 2018 at 9:52:00 pm
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on May 2, 2018 at 9:59:58 pm

I'm sorry, but there is a reason no one ever reconsidered the various insanities of the magnetic timeline, secondary storylines, connected clips, auditions or any other random stupid balls Apple decided to come up with.

It was broadly rejected out of hand as an illiterate methodology scrawl from a post iPhone company effectively high on its own supply.
FCPX was, and largely remains, a pompous long standing industry joke piece of software. It's the literal antithesis of FCP.

It was, is, and will ever be, a rare kind of software we all can laugh at for good reason. My connected clips you guys. I think I need a secondary storyline.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967
producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 2, 2018 at 10:38:06 pm

Dude! Welcome back. Or maybe that was just a drive-by. Like a blast of fresh air, though... Well, maybe ☺

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 2, 2018 at 11:20:10 pm
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on May 2, 2018 at 11:24:09 pm

come on though, this is the oldest joke in editing. This forum is the last standing bar of FCPX. It's filled with a certain class of editors telling anyone who'll hear that they are about to break across the world and spread the good word we haven't heard yet.

Should have listened to my old man, there's plenty like me to be found, so goodbye yellow brick road, should have heard the yellow brick road. As the lyric goes.

And so, farewell FCPX. With a dagger thrust through your heart. We chose to kill you.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967
producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 3, 2018 at 10:50:55 am

Brilliant.

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index

James Culbertson
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 4, 2018 at 3:54:45 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "come on though, this is the oldest joke in editing. This forum is the last standing bar of FCPX."

Well, the FCP10 editors Facebook page has 30,000 members, the Premiere editors Facebook page has 20,000 members, and the AVID editors FB page has 18,000 members. Just saying...


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 3, 2018 at 9:12:42 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "FCPX was, and largely remains, a pompous long standing industry joke piece of software. It's the literal antithesis of FCP.

It was, is, and will ever be, a rare kind of software we all can laugh at for good reason. My connected clips you guys. I think I need a secondary storyline.
"


We've missed you Aindreas 😃


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 3, 2018 at 9:27:23 pm

I've always felt that this forum without Aindreas was like Gladiator without Russell Crowe.

It lost most of its lustre when he went into premature retirement.

(Sorry, Tim, I know you disagree.)

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 4, 2018 at 11:38:32 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "(Sorry, Tim, I know you disagree.)"

What?!? Not at all! My lamentations went unheard. Professor O'Gallchoir and I have stayed in touch over the years on topics as wide-ranging as poetry, Connemara, VR, and Cashel Blue cheese, among many others. If I could find a way to work those into this forum, I would, and if I've ever given the least impression that I don't miss Aindreas every day he's not here, I'm amiss.

This is a lovely thread that I'm enjoying immensely, by the way, and hope to contribute to it more meaningfully....soon. 😁👍🐮


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 4, 2018 at 1:28:07 pm

[Tim Wilson] "topics as wide-ranging as poetry, Connemara, VR, and Cashel Blue cheese, among many others. If I could find a way to work those into this forum"

Seriously? We've been WAY further OT than than that!


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 5, 2018 at 1:18:15 am

He's not lying. I myself learnt of the Emu's, the standing stones and the solar power cell trees himself and his good partner Nora enjoy day by day.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967
producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 8, 2018 at 4:39:11 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "He's not lying. I myself learnt of the Emu's, the standing stones and the solar power cell trees himself and his good partner Nora enjoy day by day."

Indeed, among our conversations is the key role that Joyce's own Nora (Barnacle, immortalized as Molly Bloom) played in his otherwise inexplicable stylistic leap to Ulysses (which we might characterize as outright theft if Joyce hadn't built something so magnificent from his pilferings) from the mere mortality of The Dubliners and Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man which I adore nonetheless in calling them prosaic. They are, after all, prose.

This is the perfect time to note that Nora: The Real Life of Molly Bloom'>Nora: The Real Life of Molly Bloom by Brenda Maddox came out during my career as a bookstore manager for Barnes & Noble, and is vastly better than the Amazon reviews would lead you to believe.

See? Literary criticism. I'm happier talking about that, or frankly, my love of retail, than most of what we talk about, which I also obviously enjoy. But it's a tiny, tiny slice of my actual LIFE. This is after all my fifth or sixth career. I'm interested in lots of stuff, and my range of interests is expanding. I know yours is too.

One of the limitations of this forum, which I'd like to address at length in another couple of threads, is the necessarily narrow window it offers into our lives. No matter how discursive our discourse here, we're still more or less buzzing in circles around this bizzzzzness.

This means that I've never mentioned Aindreas's Twitter identity (chock-a-block with all the phlegm and fortune a man could want) as @swimtwobirds, a delightful cyber-pun on the 1939 classic Irish novel At Swim Two Birds (get it? AT Swim Two Birds! Genius!) by Brian O'Nolan, under the pseudonym Flann O'Brien. It would take Don DeLillo nearly 50 years to catch up to this level of stylistic meta-flair in White Noise, and David Foster Wallace another 20 years after that, if that, and the two of them combined are less than half as funny as O'Nolan.

So what you probably don't know if you're only going by our occassional public clashes --- including over FCPX; I'll be reminding you all later in this thread that I was alone in predicting that FCPX would reach 10 million users by the end of its first year (OOOPS) -- is that I've always considered Aindreas my conscience in my role as forum moderator. He and I will always differ on the appropriate amount of editorial guidance I should be offering -- I think I've consistently erred in moderating too little; he demurs in rainbows -- but I've been grateful for his demands for transparency, and his frequent insistence that I do better.

Well, for the past year and a half, personal crises (86.4%), demands from other parts of my job (9.2%), and various other nonsense (4.4%) have meant that I've done next to nothing here, but it's not for any lack of interest. I missed catching the wave on quite a few threads along the way. I currently have 205 tabs open in Chrome (which isn't even the only browser I have open), and surely a half dozen or more of those are unfinished posts on some of these months-old threads. I may finish some of them yet.

I of course tried to fire up again not long ago and fizzled. I hope this time that I'll be able push the choke back in before I sputter out so soon this time. (Since we got to lawnmowers on this thread, I thought it was about damn time to bring in outboard motors.)

In the meantime, as much as we're all safer when Aindreas isn't posting under the influence, I agree with Simon that we're all poorer when he's not posting at all.


Return to posts index

Dennis Kutchera
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 5, 2018 at 2:06:50 am

I came to this thread late, from the COW newsletter and have read most of the comments. It seems to me, as our venerable colleague Phillip Hodgetts once said, "We are not in the post business, we are in the business of making money for other people." When they make succeed, we succeed and we have a client who will come back. You choose the tools best suited for the job at hand. You pick the best talent for the job at hand. Whatever gets the job done on time and on budget is what we need to be concerned about. If a talented picture editor wants to work on Media Composer or FCP X, then that should be accommodated if you want the best cut. If you are working with multiple editors and other artists in a collaborative workflow, you better get the tool that is most robust for that with the best technical support, especially if you are on a tight turnaround.

When you need to push reality through the pipeline, I think your best bang comes from Avid Media Composer with the Symphony option and the Baselight Colour plugin. On shared storage, Avid wins hands down. On huge projects with lots of bins and sources, Avid wins again. The projects open fast and they don't slow down because bins are separate files from the project, accessible at the Finder or Explorer in the OS. This is the secret to Avid's project sharing and it eliminates the possibility of a project becoming corrupted and unopenable. You just create a new project and drag your bins into it. Mind you, I cannot recall every having a corrupted project in Avid. If you transcode media (you don't have to), then media location is consistent and predictable in Avid, there is an active database that doesn't depend on the OS or need to be rebuilt every time the project is opened. Avid tends to keep you organized because unless you force it otherwise, you can depend on the location of the project and bin files.

If you are doing promos and sizzle reels, Premiere is probably the best choice because of the tight integration with After Effects. FCPX with Motion might satisfy some and Resolve 15 with Fusion integration may eventually kick the others in the a$$. Avid sucks in this department.

If you are doing documentaries. Avid with Phrase Find or FCPX with it's keywords might be more helpful in keeping track of content.

If you are doing scripted, the clear winner is Avid Media Composer with Script Sync. Script Sync was not available for quite a few Media Composer versions and a lot of people stayed with an older version of Media Composer just to use Script Sync because it makes them do their job better with less stress. It was the right tool for the job. Avid projects are not version dependent, so you can go back and forth from newer to older versions, unlike all competitors.

Also consider when you are done the project and need to archive it with media. Avid MC and Adobe Premiere are far better choices because they will consolidate and trim the media to whatever you used plus handles. Unless something has changes, the only option I recall with FCP X is to store every frame of source media, even if you used 30 frames out of five minutes. That is not at all efficient for archive storage and retrieval, but for some people, they may prefer this.

Editing software is the cheapest part of the post-production equation and should never even be debated, just evaluated for the work at hand. I am a long standing Avid guy who also worked with Final Cut Pro Classic right from version one, but I will also work in Premiere and I have worked with FInal Cut Pro X. Since I focus on colour and finishing more these days, I love working with DaVInci Resolve. For what it is worth, the best round trip into Resolve I ever had was from FCPX and Premiere was the worst. Avid can be flawless or a complete disaster. There are a few protocols you need to follow with Avid and then it is nearly painless.

To say there are people who refuse to change is not at all fair. Change for the sake of change is not helpful. There are productions that won't even update to a newer version of their weapon of choice because what they are using works and they can't afford to miss delivery milestones due to new surprises and gotchas. Beta software? Not if you want to meet the delivery.

At the end of the day, did you enjoy your work, were you able to meet the client's expectations and did both the client and you make money from the job? If so, you are on the right track. If you are trying to force Mac or Windows, FCP X or Premiere down everyone's throat because of some idealogical or illogical reason, you are making a huge mistake. I'll use the best tool for the job. I've recommended all three of the Big A's to different projects at different times. You don't use a Lawnboy to trim the grass on a sports field, even though it cuts grass; you find the right machine fitted to the job.

Dennis Kutchera
Online Editor / Colourist
Halifax - Toronto


Return to posts index

Michael Locke
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 5, 2018 at 7:12:10 am

Look,

You guys are all legends, and I've yet exist, but the word I don't think I've heard is "disposable" for Apple software. Starting on 10.6.8, I didn't think I was getting in on the high point. All we wanted was a 64bit FCP, with maybe some more resolution options. EOL was the option- for the whole suite. So I can never take Apple seriously for any product they whimsically produce today. It's not hate anymore, as soon as ProRes doesn't matter things will really change...

Michael E Locke

Roxie Summit Productions, LLC


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 5, 2018 at 9:07:00 am

[Michael Locke] "You guys are all legends, and I've yet exist, but the word I don't think I've heard is "disposable" for Apple software."

Because FCP 7 still works, FCPX is quite a few years old now, Apple are clearly still committed to it - disposable doesn’t really apply!

Perhaps if you compare it Avid, but in that case everything is disposable, personally I like things shaken up every few years. If I wanted glacial change I’d still be editing on Avid


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 8, 2018 at 3:36:21 pm

[Steve Connor] "disposable doesn’t really apply!"

If there's anything that we can count on with Apple it's that at any point in any of their products' lifeline any item can be designated as disposable.

Windows 10 Pro | i7-5820k CPU | NvidiaGeForceGTX970 | Blackmagic Decklink 4k Mini Monitor |
Adobe CC 2018 |Renders/cache: Samsung SSD 950 Pro x2 in Raid 0 | Media: Samsung SSD 960 PRO PCIe NVMe M.2 2280 | Media: OWC Thunderbay 4 x 2 Raid 0 mirrored with FreeFileSync


Return to posts index

Al Bergstein
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 7, 2018 at 2:31:00 pm

To me Michael really hits the nail on the head. it’s been a very interesting conversation thread to read now seven years into FCPX. Apple has failed in a fundamental marketing issue which is technical evangelism of their product . they have left it to Larry Jordan and a few others to make their case, and as an ex user of Final Cut Pro I was shocked when Apple simply abandon the product and told us to move on to a new product that was essentially still in beta. There was no roadmap from Final Cut Pro to Final Cut X. Apples insistence on silence before launch only works in the consumer world. For corporations and other professionals, roadmaps are a necessity, so planning is able to be done, for budgeting purposes primarily. The lack of trust has just recently been shown again as we start to hear that the Macintosh operating system team has been dismantled. This can only point to one thing, that Apple is betting the whole farm on the iOS operating system. The fact that Apple is not discussing this publicly is another example of poor marketing on their point to this piece sector of the market. The latest products in the laptop market from them are underwhelming from a professional standpoint. The idea of any of us who were professionally whether a one-man band or a major editing shop in Los Angeles to consider running our business on iOS for editing is just absurd at this moment in time. The limitations of this consumer operating system is evident anyone that tries to work deeper than email or Facebook posts on it . it would be trivial for me to learn final cut Pro X. It’s even more trivial for me to buy it. But the notion of investing in an editing suite which is what we all do means we have to believe that the company is not going to go out of the market tomorrow. Apple has done little to convince us that they won’t do another FCP switch again. We know that for all their faults, Avid and Adobe exist to produce professional products for editors. Apple does not. They could dump us all tomorrow, and it would not affect their bottom line at all.

Al


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 7, 2018 at 4:16:29 pm

[Al Bergstein] "The lack of trust has just recently been shown again as we start to hear that the Macintosh operating system team has been dismantled. "

Not sure that's actually true?

[Al Bergstein] "This can only point to one thing, that Apple is betting the whole farm on the iOS operating system. The fact that Apple is not discussing this publicly is another example of poor marketing on their point to this piece sector of the market. "

They have, they've said they're not! https://www.macrumors.com/2018/04/19/tim-cook-still-opposed-to-merging-mac-...


[Al Bergstein] "The latest products in the laptop market from them are underwhelming from a professional standpoint. "

Products are fine, just need inelegant dongles

[Al Bergstein] "Apple has done little to convince us that they won’t do another FCP switch again."

Well they've just released iMac Pro, also going to release a new Mac Pro as well, would be a bit stupid of them to discontinue FCPX after doing that

[Al Bergstein] "They could dump us all tomorrow, and it would not affect their bottom line at all."

True, but it also wouldn't affect mine as I would simply switch to Premiere or Resolve.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 7, 2018 at 4:44:03 pm

[Al Bergstein] "it would be trivial for me to learn final cut Pro X. It’s even more trivial for me to buy it."

The don't. Man, you PC guys are touchy!

[Al Bergstein] "Apple has done little to convince us that they won’t do another FCP switch again. "

That's right! As an Avid|DS user I know Avid would NEVER do that. Oh wait.....

[Al Bergstein] "They could dump us all tomorrow, and it would not affect their bottom line at all."

As Steve said, a switch to Premiere, Avid or Resolve would be in order. Plus, on an hourly gig, there would be more money to be made....

;-)

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Visual Storyteller
https://vimeo.com/channels/1322525
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Al Bergstein
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 7, 2018 at 6:03:35 pm

[Al Bergstein] "it would be trivial for me to learn final cut Pro X. It’s even more trivial for me to buy it."

The don't. Man, you PC guys are touchy!

Al says: Wasn't being touchy, just pointing out that the price and training time is not the issue.

[Al Bergstein] "Apple has done little to convince us that they won’t do another FCP switch again. "

That's right! As an Avid|DS user I know Avid would NEVER do that. Oh wait.....

Al says: Well, I moved to Pr. They haven't done that yet. I have no idea about Avid's history. I've been overall happy with the switch to Pr. Though it seems that a lot of complaints are showing up currently on their boards.

[Al Bergstein] "They could dump us all tomorrow, and it would not affect their bottom line at all."

As Steve said, a switch to Premiere, Avid or Resolve would be in order. Plus, on an hourly gig, there would be more money to be made....

Al says: Yes, I did. And yes, probably true. I am a long time Apple (and Windows) customer. To be clear, I have used Macs since the very first one was brought out (boy does that date me!). I have wandered back and forth with Apple over the decades, and supported thousands of their machines as well as Windows machines. I loved FCP, and felt it was extremely stable for those days, compared to the competition. I felt the move to X was extremely poorly handled and showed a lack of respect for the customer. I have loved working on Pr (and it's tight integration with Audition and AE). I am a working pro but only local docs etc. Not involved in any big ticket filmmaking. (I have done a lot of local video and a few longer docs). I should have been Apple's X customer. But am not. I just bought a new MB Pro, have an iMac 27" (2017). But I'm not convinced any of us have a future on Apple's platforms, and I use NTFS drives with Paragon software's NTFS for Macs to allow cross platform compatibility and a way off Apple if needed.

Al


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 7, 2018 at 6:25:23 pm

[Al Bergstein] "I felt the move to X was extremely poorly handled and showed a lack of respect for the customer."

Not many people will disagree with the fact that the launch was handled badly!

[Al Bergstein] "I have loved working on Pr (and it's tight integration with Audition and AE)."

That's great, despite what some of the more ardent FCPX evangelists say, it is a great NLE with some excellent features and if you love working with then good for you!

[Al Bergstein] "But I'm not convinced any of us have a future on Apple's platforms"

I was starting to entertain thoughts like that as well a while ago, but I think Apple have moved to reassure Pros in the last few months and I'm a lot more confident now. However if I was editing on PPro only I'd be very tempted to switch back to PC as there definitely seems to be advantage to running it on Nvidia Cards


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 7, 2018 at 7:07:12 pm

[Al Bergstein] "Though it seems that a lot of complaints are showing up currently on their boards. "

You get to know to pass on the first few versions of an Adobe update.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Visual Storyteller
https://vimeo.com/channels/1322525
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Reconsidering a pompous editing system made by Apple engineers.
on May 5, 2018 at 9:15:10 am

[Dennis Kutchera] "At the end of the day, did you enjoy your work, were you able to meet the client's expectations and did both the client and you make money from the job? If so, you are on the right track. If you are trying to force Mac or Windows, FCP X or Premiere down everyone's throat because of some idealogical or illogical reason, you are making a huge mistake. I'll use the best tool for the job. I've recommended all three of the Big A's to different projects at different times. You don't use a Lawnboy to trim the grass on a sports field, even though it cuts grass; you find the right machine fitted to the job."

Brilliant, even gets a lawnmower analogy in, thanks Dennis. I might slightly disagree with some of your conclusions but that last para nails it!


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2018 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]