FORUMS: list search recent posts

Walter Murch positing SMPTE standards for editing software

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Aindreas Gallagher
Walter Murch positing SMPTE standards for editing software
on Nov 16, 2011 at 10:47:23 pm

http://www.macvideo.tv/editing/interviews/?articleid=3318132&olo=rss

forgoing frothing ranting for a change, watched this and noted that - murch points out in the first couple of minutes the queasy reality that we are all beholden to a handful of privately held corporations to sustain our editing toolset, which is to say, our ability to edit.
One just went nuts, one is financially on the rocks, and the other one is adobe - and then there's wiki lightworks.

Referring to what just happened to FCP, he draws comparison to the rules governing what comprises a camera lens, what comprises film projection - given that the physical tools of editing have been fully virtualised, is there an argument that there should be some form of governing stricture on what comprises a certifiable editing application for (dread word) professional use?

I'm not sure it really works given how fast things are going, but on an emotional level, I do.. rather like the idea?


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Walter Murch positing SMPTE standards for editing software
on Nov 16, 2011 at 11:43:18 pm

I thought that was one of the most interesting ideas in that interview (which otherwise didn't have any real news). I don't know how it would be implemented - (maybe through a new standards body set up by the Editor's Guild, ACE, and other interested orgs.?) but I think there would be clear benefits for all.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Gary Hazen
Re: Walter Murch positing SMPTE standards for editing software
on Nov 17, 2011 at 12:26:42 am

I think it's a good idea. A set of minimum stadards, such as broadcast monitoring, that would need to be met in order to carry a qualified tag. If they attempt to make the qualifications too complex it will never get off the ground.

If such a standard had been in place prior to the launch of FCPX would that have made any difference in the development of the app?

IMO, doubtful. Apple being Apple they probably would have said, "screw the standards - we're doing our own thing".


Return to posts index


Chris Harlan
Re: Walter Murch positing SMPTE standards for editing software
on Nov 17, 2011 at 12:26:53 am

I think SMPTE is the right organization--especially for a standardization of XML--but I'm not sure you could get Apple interested in playing along. In fact, I'm pretty sure you couldn't.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Walter Murch positing SMPTE standards for editing software
on Nov 17, 2011 at 12:31:38 am

Aindreas,

Yes I thought this was the most interesting thing from that clip.

I read it as a provocation in Apple's direction, though, since as Chris Harlan has already noted, Apple really don't like those sorts of relationships.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Walter Murch positing SMPTE standards for editing software
on Nov 17, 2011 at 1:16:45 am

for sure, it runs around your head though.

Given that dissimilar private companies (numbering three really?), are completely in charge of what editing actually is as a toolset, and given their varying health, something as simple as an inability to class something as a professional editing system without basic adherence to professional practise and interoperability has.. an attraction.

mostly I think its just an interesting conversation: do we have within us the basis of a commonly agreed inherent toolset that needs to be respected or is editing now simply an amorphous assembly of media assets that any company's engineers can do anything they like to in architectural terms?

Who has rights here? The editing basis of the moving image? its practitioners? If all their engineers were slipped LSD mickey finns, and all three editing providers then produced software where you had to puncture floating onscreen bubbles in order to perform a three point edit - what exactly then happens to film, television, documentary or indeed the ocean of corporate?

Given that they are not editors, should there be documented parameters to shape software engineers approach to the editing paradigm?
Either editing has an independent reality and nomenclature outside the whims of the providers, or it doesn't.

I only argue about rights and protections for the editing paradigm because the market forces are so weak here: adobe can be truly fickle and lazy, avid is in deep trouble, and apple just tried the 'whip the tablecloth' gag and failed - hence the broken plates and glass in everyone's face.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index


Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Walter Murch positing SMPTE standards for editing software
on Nov 17, 2011 at 1:33:21 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] " ... do we have within us the basis of a commonly agreed inherent toolset that needs to be respected ... Who has rights here?

Aindreas,

The scenario that I imagine (which might be feasible) is much simpler - along the lines of the tube of toothpaste model: as the producer of the product, you get to put the Association's stamp of approval on the tube if you win the endorsement.

So you can imagine the guilds giving their approval (and you can even imagine the Creative Cow insignia there ...) and the various bodies would have their own methods of qualification - the more sophisticated ones would have engineering requirements and the less sophisticated ones might simply put it to a vote.

It is a fantasy, but it is attractive because Murch is clearly speaking to the sense of betrayed trust and the idea that editors need a voice in all this ...


Franz.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Walter Murch positing SMPTE standards for editing software
on Nov 17, 2011 at 1:36:40 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "It is a fantasy, but it is attractive because Murch is clearly speaking to the sense of betrayed trust and the idea that editors need a voice in all this ..."

yep.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Walter Murch positing SMPTE standards for editing software
on Nov 17, 2011 at 3:05:23 pm

If the purpose of a standard is to limit volatility, consider that while it would raise your downside, it would also lower your upside.

FCPX wasn't a great fit for me, but I certainly appreciate that Apple tried something new. Not all change is progress, but maybe all progress requires change.

If the standard were so tight that it would discourage innovation, I think that'd be a net loss for the industry. If the standard were so loose that the risky innovations in FCPX would have qualified, what would the point of the standard have been?

The market will sort it out, with or without standards. If FCPX doesn't change enough to work in complex workflows, other vendors like Adobe and Avid will fill the gap. Prices may rise again, but higher licensing prices would be worthwhile to get the features we need.

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


Christian Schumacher
Re: Walter Murch positing SMPTE standards for editing software
on Nov 17, 2011 at 5:32:41 pm

Forget earthly made-up standards, Apple will only answer to a higher calling.
Watch those pieces quickly or they'll vanish before your eyes:













If someone bashes me for this...Please, let humor grow inside of you.


Return to posts index

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