FORUMS: list search recent posts

Where we are: No need for debate

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Ben Holmes
Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 1:52:32 pm

Hi all!

I've been maintaining (mostly) a silence on this issue, as I've been busy editing, and haven't had time to give the options a fair shake. Now that I (kind of) have done, I can't see the problem in choosing. Or rather, I choose NOT to choose. Confused?

So here's how it shakes out:

1) Use AVID if you need large, collaborative workflows.
2) Use PPro if you used to use FCP7 in smaller setups - and have legacy issues.
3) Use FCPX if you want to work quickly in editorial environments and don't carry legacy baggage from project to project.

These will be the three systems I plan to use going forward. Each has plusses and big minuses depending on usage. All will give me similar results. Admittedly, I need a video output from X before I can actually use it, but I can wait to get up to speed on it anyway. In real terms, if you can't afford to run all this software, you probably aren't charging enough. Buy FCPX and get on with it. With MC6 on the horizon, all 3 should run on the same Mac with the same video hardware. No other manufacturer's gear can say the same, so Apple win.

Final point: People hire me, and my gear for the cost and the result - not for how I got there. Offer them the solution that best suits that outcome, and everyone is happy.

All the best with the forum - I'll stick to the techniques ones from now on. No time for debates!

All the best,
Ben.

Edit Out Ltd
----------------------------
FCP Editor/Trainer/System Consultant
EVS/VT Supervisor for live broadcast
RED camera transfer/post
Independent Director/Producer

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/community/communitydetails/?UserStoryId=87...


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 2:04:31 pm

Nice summary!

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Kevin Patrick
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 3:28:27 pm

[Ben Holmes] "I'll stick to the techniques ones from now on."

I bet somebody is gonna post something that gets you back here.

Every time you think you're out, they draw you back in.
(or however the quote went)


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 3:48:59 pm

Yes, treating this whole thing like and either/or choice hasn't made much sense to me.

I think a key issue has been hardware compatibility between the NLEs. I think that's been going away especially as Avid opens up a bit. Premiere will have CUDA but FCPX is taking advantage of OpenCL and, over time, OSX specific features.

There might be a debate over Mac vs Windows though and that may even intensify when the new MacPros finally happen. It'll be interesting to see how Thunderbolt is handled over time (even on PC given Acer, Asus, Sony vs HP, Dell, Lenovo).

Actually there was a time when this was a gut wrenching, wallet crying decision when one weighed the exorbitant cost of an Avid upgrade vs an FCP system but those days are long gone.

There's no reason not to have a diversified tool chest. There's no reason not to have a primary tool based on one's own typical workflow.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 4:35:23 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I think a key issue has been hardware compatibility between the NLEs."

For me, it's interchange.

FCP was an open system, but Apple has thrown up all kinds of walls around FCPX through the combination of a new data model (which no other apps use) and their lack of interest in supporting existing interchange standards.

There are some brilliant ideas in FCPX that I really like; I just wish it were easier to make it communicate with other systems.

I'd like to see Apple become a better citizen in the post community again. Asking third parties to help them interchange suggests to me that they see it as a low priority, not worth their time.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 4:57:52 pm

[Walter Soyka] "FCP was an open system, but Apple has thrown up all kinds of walls around FCPX through the combination of a new data model (which no other apps use) and their lack of interest in supporting existing interchange standards."

I think you're making an assumption that the current state is the final state. FCPXML is just a first step. It'll get there. Obviously if it's not usable at the moment then, that's where it sites now but that does not indicate that their goal is walled product.



Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 5:31:07 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I think you're making an assumption that the current state is the final state. FCPXML is just a first step. It'll get there. Obviously if it's not usable at the moment then, that's where it sites now but that does not indicate that their goal is walled product."

I'm not making any assumptions -- just sharing my observations on the current state of the product (poor interchange), outline my concerns, and stating my hopes for future versions (improved interchange).

You are making an assumption when you say, "FCPXML is just a first step. It'll get there." I'd call that a reasonable assumption, but there have been many reasonable and erroneous assumptions about FCPX so far. I'm trying not to make any more of them myself, and that means not looking beyond things that Apple has explicitly promised. Since they did say in the FAQ that they do not intend to support legacy import, I think my concerns over interchange are well-founded.

I agree that FCPX is still under development and that there's more to come, but getting back to Simon's iMovie/FCPX discussion from another thread, they've had more than 4 years, and probably closer to 5 or 6, to think about how their new timeline data model can work with the rest of the world. I'm drawing the conclusion that interchange is a very low priority for Apple, since a lot of other development has advanced dramatically in that time -- and interchange hasn't.

Openness wins, and I find it disconcerting that Apple doesn't seem to be valuing it more highly.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 6:50:07 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I agree that FCPX is still under development and that there's more to come, but getting back to Simon's iMovie/FCPX discussion from another thread, they've had more than 4 years, and probably closer to 5 or 6, to think about how their new timeline data model can work with the rest of the world. I'm drawing the conclusion that interchange is a very low priority for Apple, since a lot of other development has advanced dramatically in that time -- and interchange hasn't.

Openness wins, and I find it disconcerting that Apple doesn't seem to be valuing it more highly."


Walter,

I actually don't think this is accurate. They had 4-5 years, yes. But most of that time was in parallel development with not only the video centric core technologies like CoreVideo and OpenCL - but while simultaneously devoting huge resources to iOS.

It stands to reason that any development team likely had to pause and wait for the plumbing to finalize before they could move on installing the fixtures.

I also think that's why everyone is so frustrated with interchange. As Phil Hodgetts noted to me recently, "none of the third party developers could really get going until the primary code base was locked." And that didn't take place until just shy of 4 months ago.

If X doesn't have useful and interesting additions in it's first year on the streets - that's one thing and worthy of remark. That people are still dinging it for not having a full blown 3rd party ecosystem in place in that short a period is pretty sketchy, IMO.

It's working pretty darn well now for me as a 1.0.

Only time will tell which of those limitations will fall away, in what order, and how soon.

One thing Apple has said, crystal clearly is that this is their editing platform for the next decade. They know ALL the editing spaces from beginner to hollywood moviemaking awfully well. So I think that has to be seen as representing a pretty clear long term commitment to the product.

Finally, on the "openness" concept. Maybe. We all recall that the Mac itself, ITunes and iOS have been about as closed a set of systems as is possible in the modern era. They all succeeded quite nicely - not because they were necessarily "open" but rather because they identified a problem (sometimes that people didn't even recognize that they had) and solved them in a fashion that lowered barriers to both ease of use and user satisfaction.

All of those initiatives are now vastly more profitable for Apple than video editing. But I think they also understand the long time Apple lesson that cutting edge software that solves real problems for lots of people still drives hardware sales.

FCP-X maximizes today's hardware. That includes a de-emphasis on "big iron" desktop systems and more emphasis on laptops and likely iOS devices in the future. Mirroring precisely what the largest group of people in the marketplace are voting to purchase.

I don't know if professionals will be editing video in 10 years on 30" iPad-like touch screens and using Siri 5.0 to whisper "cut clip - move to end - and paste" but it's certainly easy enough to envision.

Just not with any other software platform outside Apples — that I can see right now.

Yours for an interesting future...

; )

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 7:34:03 pm

[Bill Davis] "It stands to reason that any development team likely had to pause and wait for the plumbing to finalize before they could move on installing the fixtures."

This is where we differ. I'd consider the fundamentals of interchange -- dealing with the data structures underlying the application, and getting data in and out -- to be plumbing. The user interface is a fixture, and yet that's ready to go.

I'd also consider the APIs to be part of the plumbing. If they're still not released to developers, can we really assume they're actually there waiting to be used in FCPX 10.0.1? This is conjecture on my part, but I'm worried that Apple is now going back and shoehorning developer APIs into the FCPX architecture for a future release.

In other words, they've built the house, and we've already moved in -- but now they are re-plumbing it behind the walls.


[Bill Davis] "I also think that's why everyone is so frustrated with interchange. As Phil Hodgetts noted to me recently, "none of the third party developers could really get going until the primary code base was locked." And that didn't take place until just shy of 4 months ago."

Software engineering doesn't happen overnight. FCPX didn't go from 0% to 100% completion between June 20th and June 21st. Apple has been designing this application for years, and they had to design the data structures and build private APIs for themselves before they could build the entire application.

Information about the data structures (FCPXML) was released three months after launch, but that same data structure must have been fixed some time ago for Apple's devs to actually write an application around it.

Further, Automatic Duck and Noise Industries had launch-day products. Presumably this require more than 5 minutes of work.


[Bill Davis] "If X doesn't have useful and interesting additions in it's first year on the streets - that's one thing and worthy of remark. That people are still dinging it for not having a full blown 3rd party ecosystem in place in that short a period is pretty sketchy, IMO."

I'm not dinging FCPX for not having a full-blown third-party ecosystem. I understand that takes time. I'm dinging Apple for failing to offer the foundation for that ecosystem. FCPX's deficiencies wouldn't be so bad if third-party developers were better able to work on them.

Again, I'll point to Adobe's recent 64-bit rewrite of After Effects. They treated third-party developers as partners and worked with them in advance of the release of CS5 to ensure that they could have products ready when CS5 launched. The fact that major developers heard about changes to FCPX's architecture at the same time that users did is incomprehensible.


[Bill Davis] "I don't know if professionals will be editing video in 10 years on 30" iPad-like touch screens and using Siri 5.0 to whisper "cut clip - move to end - and paste" but it's certainly easy enough to envision. Just not with any other software platform outside Apples — that I can see right now."

I'd agree that Avid is pretty unlikely to change their interface, but Adobe has recently announced the Touch Apps. Apple is really not the only one exploring alternate options.



[Bill Davis] "Finally, on the "openness" concept. Maybe. We all recall that the Mac itself, ITunes and iOS have been about as closed a set of systems as is possible in the modern era. They all succeeded quite nicely - not because they were necessarily "open" but rather because they identified a problem (sometimes that people didn't even recognize that they had) and solved them in a fashion that lowered barriers to both ease of use and user satisfaction."

The Mac is very open -- it's built on UNIX and uses all sorts of standard protocols. If not for this, we may not have Smoke and Resolve on Macs today.

I agree that the other products are very closed, but I'd point out that they are consumer products where Apple themselves provides the ecosystem.

FCP was a professional product that interfaced well with many complicated external standards, and that flexibility and openness allowed it to grow and flourish in all segments of professional and non-professional post.


[Bill Davis] "It's working pretty darn well now for me as a 1.0. Only time will tell which of those limitations will fall away, in what order, and how soon."

I'm glad it's working well for you, and there's a lot in FCPX to like. I am confident that FCPX will improve over the long term. In the short term, though, I have deep concerns about how Apple is treating the ones who built the original FCP ecosystem and helped FCP to grow.

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


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 22, 2011 at 10:50:17 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'm dinging Apple for failing to offer the foundation for that ecosystem. FCPX's deficiencies wouldn't be so bad if third-party developers were better able to work on them.

Again, I'll point to Adobe's recent 64-bit rewrite of After Effects. They treated third-party developers as partners and worked with them in advance of the release of CS5 to ensure that they could have products ready when CS5 launched. The fact that major developers heard about changes to FCPX's architecture at the same time that users did is incomprehensible."


Walter,

I know nothing about Apple's (or Adobe's) internal decision making. And I also understand that working with "selected partners" is vastly different than giving everyone the keys to the kingdom, ala "open source" initiatives.

However I read this earlier today and thought it you might find it interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/4xz8593

It's essentially an Ars Technica piece on how sometimes, "openness" isn't always the best and clearest path to excellence.

It's not necessarily on point regarding this particular discussion. But it did expand my thinking on my general view of circumstances where "openness" sometimes has unintended and very negative consequences.

Steve Jobs appears to have understood this well in advance of most people, and there seems to have been a significant method behind much of his "walled garden" madness.

Interesting stuff.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 23, 2011 at 8:36:48 am

[Bill Davis] "I know nothing about Apple's (or Adobe's) internal decision making. And I also understand that working with "selected partners" is vastly different than giving everyone the keys to the kingdom, ala "open source" initiatives."

I'm not talking about the keys to the kingdom -- just the tools that first-party developers build specifically to allow third-party developers to improve the first party's products and add value for the first party, the third parties, and the users.

Nobody loses when an application has strong ecosystem around it -- so why not do everything you can to encourage the development of that ecosystem?


[Bill Davis] "It's essentially an Ars Technica piece on how sometimes, "openness" isn't always the best and clearest path to excellence. It's not necessarily on point regarding this particular discussion. But it did expand my thinking on my general view of circumstances where "openness" sometimes has unintended and very negative consequences."

Bill, thanks for the link. It was an interesting read!

Speaking generally, I think closed platforms versus open platforms are like centrally-planned economies versus free markets: in trying to limit your downside, you also limit your upside. You trade reduced opportunity for reduced volatility. You have the stability of a single designer, but you are confined to the limits of their imagination, interests, and values. You know exactly what you will get, but you place the entire burden for the growth and development of the platform on a single entity.

A walled garden is a lovely place -- as long as you're content to be confined. Like you pointed out, Apple is proving this tradeoff works well for many.

I argue for openness in FCPX in the abstract because it would give third-party developers the flexibility to create solutions that even Apple wouldn't have considered, and it would let niches be served even if Apple has no interest in them. I argue for openness in FCPX in practical terms because it's simply necessary for workflows where Apple does not or cannot provide end-to-end solutions.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 24, 2011 at 3:05:11 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I argue for openness in FCPX in the abstract because it would give third-party developers the flexibility to create solutions that even Apple wouldn't have considered, and it would let niches be served even if Apple has no interest in them. I argue for openness in FCPX in practical terms because it's simply necessary for workflows where Apple does not or cannot provide end-to-end solutions."

Walter, I'm curious about this comment. How open do you need FCPX to be?

Let's say FCPXML matures to a robust language, what more would you want? Do you think FCP7 was more open or just had more robust communication? Just curious as to how you think an NLE could be more of an "open platform" without it being an open source project. i.e. By open, do you mean expand its capabilities in it's own framework?

Jeremy


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 26, 2011 at 4:51:15 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Walter, I'm curious about this comment. How open do you need FCPX to be? Let's say FCPXML matures to a robust language, what more would you want? Do you think FCP7 was more open or just had more robust communication? Just curious as to how you think an NLE could be more of an "open platform" without it being an open source project. i.e. By open, do you mean expand its capabilities in it's own framework?"

The value of an interchange standard is governed by the network effect -- the more apps can use a specific interchange standard, the more valuable it is.

I do not personally need EDL or XMEML specifically, as some other posters here may -- I just need to move an edit across apps and platforms. As the rest of the industry adopts FCPXML (which I think is inevitable), then my interchange problem will go away.

I'd argue that FCP7 was more open in two ways: interchange and plugins.

FCP7 could input an edit from and output an edit to many other systems using existing interchange standards. FCPX, with an entirely new standard, doesn't (yet) have that same broad support or value bolstered by the network effect.

FCPX plugins are still a mystery. Ideally, I'd like to see both Apple and Adobe adopt OpenFX, which is an open standard for plugin development. I am not holding my breath, though.

Failing that, I'm very worried about the apparent resistance to custom UI for plugins -- that's going to severely limit what developers can accomplish within the app. I hope that is resolved quickly.

I don't believe that open source would be necessary at all, but broad and deep APIs for development within FCPX to add capabilities beyond image and audio processing could be very interesting. Look at what FoolCut could accomplish with AppleScript -- it's the perfect example of how adding extensibility to an app enables new solutions.

Adding import plugins (for media or data other than FCPXML), asset management outside the event browser, direct access to metadata, keywords, properties, keyframes -- the more FCPX features and data exposed by the APIs, the better.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 26, 2011 at 5:52:53 pm

Awesome thanks for the response. It's what I thought you might be thinking, but I wanted to be sure.

[Walter Soyka] "I don't believe that open source would be necessary at all, but broad and deep APIs for development within FCPX to add capabilities beyond image and audio processing could be very interesting. Look at what FoolCut could accomplish with AppleScript -- it's the perfect example of how adding extensibility to an app enables new solutions."

Actually, it's more than Applescript I think. Applescript simply triggers the send in this case (meaning when you send things back to FCPX from other apps, you don't have to import the XML but the script simply triggers an Applescript that opens FCPX, File > Import FCPXML). I don't think FCPXML is Applesriptable yet, but I'm not 100% sure. I don't understand the nuts and bolts well enough.

To add another talking point/point of contention, at a recent LAFCPUG meeting, Philip Hodgetts says that Foolcut is doing an end around and using AXEL (private API), which is FCPX's internal format. Supposedly this a no-no as Apple recommends FCPXML for third parties. This is how they were able to get so much out of the program without the new XML language. Again, I don't understand enough about it to speak fluently. Video:







Jeremy


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 27, 2011 at 10:41:17 am

[Walter Soyka] "Ideally, I'd like to see both Apple and Adobe adopt OpenFX, which is an open standard for plugin development. I am not holding my breath, though."

I'd never heard of this before but went to openfx.org and checked it out. Currently it seems that the environment is Win32 only. It's not 64-bit and it's not cross platform, so for your safety, please DO NOT hold your breath!


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 27, 2011 at 7:58:48 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "I'd never heard of this before but went to openfx.org and checked it out. Currently it seems that the environment is Win32 only. It's not 64-bit and it's not cross platform, so for your safety, please DO NOT hold your breath!"

Hi Dennis,

It turns out that there are (confusingly) two projects, both named OpenFX. I was not talking about the one you found (which I had never heard of before, either). I was talking about this OpenFX [link]: an open plug-in API for 2D visual effects.

OpenFX was originally developed at The Foundry, then transferred to the Open Effects Association and released under a BSD-style license. Its goal is to provide a common framework to simplify effects development and make effects more widely available to artists across different hosts.

OFX effects run on Nuke, Fusion, Composite, Baselight, Film Master, SCRATCH, Mistika, and Piranha, and then run on Windows, Mac, and Linux environments with 64-bit support. GenArts and RE:Vision FX are among the founders of the Open Effects Association.

Sony added OFX support to Vegas last year to get their users access to some high-end effects without requiring their developers to target Vegas specifically. AE wouldn't get that immediate benefit, since GenArts and RE:Vision already support AE well, but as a user, I'd love to see developers able to focus more on developing effects and less on maintaining the same effects across multiple host applications.

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


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 7:42:03 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I think you're making an assumption that the current state is the final state. FCPXML is just a first step. It'll get there."

You're making an assumption too.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 8:21:49 pm

FCPX has not been EOL'd. That's not an assumption. To believe any aspect will not longer be developed is an assumption. This does not mean EDL or older forms of XML will be integrated. I have no idea if that will ever occur. That integration itself has been completed though is an assumption.



Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 8:56:13 pm

[Craig Seeman] "To believe any aspect will not longer be developed is an assumption... That integration itself has been completed though is an assumption."

Agreed -- but again, I was trying to talk about the current state of affairs, not what will or may someday be.

Shy of multicam and "broadcast-quality video monitoring," none of us have any idea what Apple is working on and what they are setting aside.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 9:15:26 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Agreed -- but again, I was trying to talk about the current state of affairs, not what will or may someday be. "

Yes, currently still lacking. We'll have to see how things progress in the next update.

[Walter Soyka] "none of us have any idea what Apple is working on and what they are setting aside."

And compounding the issue is that we don't know for sure the frequency of updates. In FCP legacy a two year pattern more or less was typical. FCPX saw its first update after about three months. That's not enough to discern a pattern though.

In other words it's not just "getting there" but will features relating to communication fast enough to respond to the market? Keep in mind there's still no round tripping (as done previously) with Motion (or Logic and we'll have to see what Logic's update includes).



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 4:01:36 pm

[Ben Holmes] "Use FCPX if you want to work quickly in editorial environments "

Oh, yeah. Those of us who choose the others do so because we want to work more slowly. Sorry, I think your analysis is suffering from .0 release bugs.


Return to posts index


Rafael Amador
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 5:02:56 pm

[Kevin Patrick] "I bet somebody is gonna post something that gets you back here.

Every time you think you're out, they draw you back in. (or however the quote went)"

Nobody force nobody to come to this Forum.
I guess that you don't work for Apple and is the very debate which bring you here.
Ben has been long around the FCP forum so his points of views will always be appreciated.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Kevin Patrick
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 5:34:58 pm

Apparently the point of my post was not obvious. I attempted to make a humorous comment relating to Ben's statement that he will most likely spend his time discussing FCP X in the FCP X Techniques forum, as opposed to this one. The humorous part was the reference to one of the Godfather movies. (forgot which one)

Honestly, I'm sorry if you didn't find it humorous. I certainly meant to disrespect to Ben either. But, I can see how someone could take an attempt (especially a poor one) at humor to be disrespectful. Again, sorry.

Although, I'm not sure I understand your comment about whether I work for Apple. Not that I'm offended. I just don't quite understand it.


Return to posts index

Kevin Patrick
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 5:49:51 pm

[Kevin Patrick] "I certainly meant to disrespect to Ben either."

It appears that I am also bad at typing, as well as humor.

What I meant to type was ...

I certainly meant no disrespect to Ben either.

If I had to mistype one word, just one word, why did it have to be that one?

I think I need to create a Signature that always includes an apology for what I've just typed.


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
@ Kevin
on Oct 20, 2011 at 2:09:08 am

[Kevin Patrick] "Apparently the point of my post was not obvious. I attempted to make a humorous comment relating to Ben's statement that he will most likely spend his time discussing FCP X in the FCP X Techniques forum, as opposed to this one. The humorous part was the reference to one of the Godfather movies. (forgot which one)

Honestly, I'm sorry if you didn't find it humorous. I certainly meant to disrespect to Ben either. But, I can see how someone could take an attempt (especially a poor one) at humor to be disrespectful. Again, sorry.

Although, I'm not sure I understand your comment about whether I work for Apple. Not that I'm offended. I just don't quite understand it."

Kevin,
Sorry If I didn't catch it, may be because quite often when FCPX critics try to put some humor we are call "haters".
Again, forget my late night commentary.
Best,
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: @ Kevin
on Oct 20, 2011 at 2:47:46 am

[Rafael Amador] "Sorry If I didn't catch it, may be because quite often when FCPX critics try to put some humor we are call "haters"."

It was me that said haters, and I said it in jest. It is clear that humor is not working on any level.

I was joking. I really was. I'm sorry everyone. I love you all. Can we all go back to being friends?


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: @ Jeremy
on Oct 20, 2011 at 3:05:51 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I was joking. I really was. I'm sorry everyone. I love you all. Can we all go back to being friends?"
I told you that when we will drink that beer we won't talk about NLEs.
We love you too Jeremy :-)
rafa

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Kevin Patrick
Re: @ Kevin
on Oct 20, 2011 at 10:59:35 am

Glad I could clear it up.

Thanks and take care.


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 5:43:41 pm

How about if you have no legacy issues but need print-to-tape or numbered audio tracks for post or a fear of sudden EOL?

RBG


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 7:06:39 pm

I'm seeing people having trouble even finding tape stock these days.

I saw an audio guy on the net about 6 months ago pleading for a source for used Ampex audio multi-track stock, to no response. Then just two weeks ago, a producer I work with had to buy SD DVCAM tape stock and mentioned that we're down to a single physical tape vendor in Arizona - and they don't stock much.

How important will "print to tape" remain when there's no tape to be had outside a few specialists in LA and NY?

Just asking.

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


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 8:37:41 pm

The tape stock shortage probably has more to do with ramifications of Sony's tape manufacturing plant being wiped out by the tsunami in Japan. Otherwise there would indeed be a surplus of unused instead of the frenzy to find it. 'Frinstance, LA continues to pester Canadian HDCAM & SR sources such as Western Digital for tape. The Canadian government still specifies tape for possible mastering. Defence requires it.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 19, 2011 at 9:13:48 pm

Totally concur. But as I've noted before here, somewhere in my studio is the last blank Ampex 456 audio tape I ever bought. The last Hi8 multitrack audio tape, The last 1" type C videotape, Beta SP tape and even the last VHS client dub tape.

This time around I'd kinda like to NOT to have another partial box of doorstop media as a reminder of the inevitable day I suddenly stopped needing them for good.

(Fingers crossed)

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


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 20, 2011 at 12:49:56 am

Agreed. But the writing is still on the wall for now.

Cheers,
RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 20, 2011 at 3:31:30 pm

As opposed to the last 8" floppy you bought, the last 5 1/4" floppy, the last 3" floppy, the last Zip Disk ... yes I guess it's only tape formats that get obsoleted, it will never happen to P2 cards.

What a world you live in.

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 20, 2011 at 8:44:07 pm

[Herb Sevush] "As opposed to the last 8" floppy you bought, the last 5 1/4" floppy, the last 3" floppy, the last Zip Disk ... yes I guess it's only tape formats that get obsoleted, it will never happen to P2 cards. "

I could buy a really nice car with the purchase value of the cases of MO, Zips, Syquest etc.
and all their devices stacked in our storage closet.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 20, 2011 at 10:10:16 pm

Five years ago I asked the tech people in the Australian Broadcasting Commission when we would be able to deliver files, not HDCam tapes. I was told five years but we still have to deliver HDCam and digi beta master tapes for local and international broadcasters and distributors, not files.

Much as Apple may abhor tape and much as I prefer to deliver files, I do not have that luxury, so when a software developer says tape is dead and acolytes take up the chant, it doesn't make market place realities any less real.

If Apple want to leverage the broadcast world, then being stuck in the fulcrum is uncomfortable so excuse me for not cheering Apple's stance.


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 21, 2011 at 7:59:59 am

You have to admit it's a pretty audacious thing for Apple to just ignore our client's needs and mandatory requirements in Apple's pursuit of what they believe we must use.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

Martin Curtis
Re: Where we are: No need for debate
on Oct 27, 2011 at 10:58:39 am

[Michael Gissing] "Five years ago I asked the tech people in the Australian Broadcasting Commission when we would be able to deliver files"
That will change when the NBN rolls around. Which may take another 5 years... or ten...


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]