FORUMS: list search recent posts

San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Richard Cardonna
San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 29, 2012 at 4:27:03 pm

Now its CPUG (Creative Pro User Group) What more can be said?

RCardonna


Return to posts index

Phil Hoppes
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 29, 2012 at 5:59:38 pm

And so has Boston.

.... as co-leader of the AZFCPUG we we've been strongly considering it and now that we've seen SF and Boston flip we think that lends strong precedence for us to probably follow.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 29, 2012 at 6:40:47 pm

Not surprising at all, many of the user groups had been featuring other NLE's for sometime anyway

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 29, 2012 at 8:10:17 pm

What all this really points to is the nature and purpose of User Groups.

As the industry progresses, the days of the big shops continue decline relative to the entire industry.

For me, there was a time I'd go to work and all day long I was surrounded be people in production and post production to talk to, pick up tips, etc. The editor were all using the same tools, the ones common to the shop.

Today, many of us are working in one person shops and/or with a very small group of associates. Our interpersonal view of the industry can be extremely narrow.

The User Group is an opportunity to regain that broader view by learning how others are approach the creative craft as well as the technical tools. For a few hours, usually once a month, we have some aspect of the big shop social atmosphere.

The other purpose some user groups had was centered around honing our skills with a specific tool. There were Avid groups, Final Cut groups, Adobe groups (After Affects or Premiere or Photoshop users). Perhaps this is on the wane. It may well be the plethora of tutorials and forums specific to tools has replaced the need for social bodies forming around specific tools.

On the other hand, the cursory information presented in a User Group not committed to a specific tools, may not do a tool's features justice for those who want to hone their skills on a specific tool. So many of the tips, tricks, deeper or less obvious functions, do not become apparent by watching online tutorials.

While many of us are generalists by necessity (or desire) a general purpose user group might give me a great superficial overview of things. As video craftsperson I may pick up a morsel of important information or be introduced to a new technique or tool in a general User Group. I think there's still purpose for tool specific User Groups . . . but maybe I'm wrong about that.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 29, 2012 at 9:58:27 pm

[Craig Seeman] "As video craftsperson I may pick up a morsel of important information or be introduced to a new technique or tool in a general User Group. I think there's still purpose for tool specific User Groups . . . but maybe I'm wrong about that."

Craig,

I couldn't agree more.

If you seek to be a "generalist" - walk in somewhere and cut on whatever they use - then the correct path is to understanding the widest range of software and it's strengths and weaknesses.

If you seek to be the best you can be at getting your work done in a single program environment - then while general knowledge of the wider industry is of some use, it's largely inefficient in helping you master the tool you most often need.

Put simpler, the steps necessary to pull a clean key in Software A is what I need to master now. The steps necessary to pull clean keys in ANY software is a more complex body of knowledge and I have to be careful about how much time I spend on comparative knowledge if operational knowledge is what makes the the most money.

This is where choice makes things difficult. Also where the constant evolution of the products makes the choices ever more persnickety. A feature in A today (for instance the "unusual for a general purpose NLE" weight on database management in X) might migrate to all it's competitors over time.

The best any of us can do, in my opinion, is to take whatever time we can afford for "exploration" gain as much general knowledge as possible, and then get off the pot and make the choices that we feel are the best for our particular circumstances.

We don't always be right. But if we hesitate to even MAKE the choices, we risk more than choosing wrongly and having to reverse ourselves at some point.

My 2 cents, anyway.

"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: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 30, 2012 at 4:26:37 pm

[Bill Davis] "If you seek to be a "generalist" - walk in somewhere and cut on whatever they use - then the correct path is to understanding the widest range of software and it's strengths and weaknesses... Put simpler, the steps necessary to pull a clean key in Software A is what I need to master now. The steps necessary to pull clean keys in ANY software is a more complex body of knowledge and I have to be careful about how much time I spend on comparative knowledge if operational knowledge is what makes the the most money."

For me, being a generalist is more about an individual crossing functions than being adept with multiple tools that do the same specialized thing.

If you know how to pull a key in one piece of software, then presumably you already understand the mechanics of keying, and moving to another comparable tool wouldn't really be that big a leap.

Gathering skills that span disciplines, though -- like an editor learning compositing -- that's the foundation of being a generalist. The fact that software developers sell suites instead of products, and that every editor here knows how to pull a key speaks to how generalized our industry has become.

Editorial, compositing, audio, color grading, motion graphics -- these are all areas of specialty, with room for high degrees of expertise and nuanced expression out of the reach of anyone other than a specialist -- and they are all practiced by generalists such as yourself and most of us here.

Everyone knows the first half of the saying, but the second half is rarely heard. It seems apropos to emphasize here:
Jack of all trades,
Master of none,
But ofttimes better
Than master of one.


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: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 30, 2012 at 5:59:13 pm

Agree with you fully. Which happens annoyingly often in this forum. Please try to me more unreasonably argumentative. We have standards in this forum, don' cha know. ; )

"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

Bill Davis
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 29, 2012 at 7:04:27 pm

Quite a bit, actually.

The originator and long time head of the San Francisco group, my old friend and early adopter Kevin Monahan now works for Adobe and contributes here semi-regularly. He's a great guy, very knowledgable, and I begrudge him nothing in his ability to publicly weigh in on issues. But he's not exactly an neutral observer. I

As to Boston, that group is largely run by Dan Berube. Another great guy I've known for a long time. He and his fellow Supergroup organizer Mike Horton have had to navigate the treacherous waters of the FCP verses other NLE manufacturers schism.

That users groups might be doing some fracturing along "party" lines isn't surprising in the least. If I was in PR at either Adobe or AVID, I'd be looking at this as a golden opportunity to spread some marketing money and talent around to do whatever I could to influence public opinion as well.

It's just smart business.

The question at the core isn't whether a users group changes direction. Volunteer groups do that all the time based on the personalities and perceived needs of the group in charge at any given time.

The real question is whether FCP-X has a future.

The more I use it, the more I think that's a solid yes.

Witness, the cover story in this weeks Broadcast Engineering. Under the subhead "Some of broadcasts brightest reveal where the industry is headed." the universal themes are "file based workflow," and "merging IT with broadcast."

Nope, none of them mention FCP-X. But that parochial view doesn't account for the fact that all of them are obsessed with managing file based metadata in the coming years. And what sets X apart from the competition? The elevation of data handling into a role arguably equal to image manipulation.

If that is increasingly the skill set that drives efficiency and results - I'm more convinced then ever that what I'm learning with my migration to FCP-X is the right direction change to enhance my career.

YMMV.

"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

Michael Gissing
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 29, 2012 at 11:17:00 pm

"Witness, the cover story in this weeks Broadcast Engineering. Under the subhead "Some of broadcasts brightest reveal where the industry is headed." the universal themes are "file based workflow," and "merging IT with broadcast."

Oh dear. It isn't where it is heading. It has already arrived. This was the buzz talk about a decade ago in broadcasting in Australia. I was promised eight years ago that I would be able to deliver mpeg streams to broadcasters within five years. Well seems like they still want an HDCam here and internationally.

It reminds me of a keynote address 20 years ago at the AES show where the president of the Audio Engineering Society said we will all be using virtual reality controllers within ten years. Such broad sweeping ill directed motherhood statements are common and journalists love to dress them up. Actual reality is that quietly the broadcast industry has been moving to file based, IT integrated workflows for a long time. It is a fairly slow and measured response as sudden radical change by any manufacturer or developer spooks the horses. That is why you don't hear FCPX mentioned at all.


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 30, 2012 at 5:04:44 pm

[Bill Davis] "Witness, the cover story in this weeks Broadcast Engineering. Under the subhead "Some of broadcasts brightest reveal where the industry is headed." the universal themes are "file based workflow," and "merging IT with broadcast." Nope, none of them mention FCP-X. But that parochial view doesn't account for the fact that all of them are obsessed with managing file based metadata in the coming years. And what sets X apart from the competition? The elevation of data handling into a role arguably equal to image manipulation."

Why would they mention FCPX in the context of file-based workflows or merging IT with broadcast? FCPX (currently) does neither.

A file-based workflow is not the same as a tapeless workflow. FCPX thinks in terms of clips which are stored in events, not files which are stored in directories. Woe is he who manipulates FCPX's referenced media files directly outside of FCPX -- or tries to write a broadcast automation script which ties multiple tools together to do the same.

As for merging IT with broadcast, this will be impossible with FCPX as long as it remains a relatively closed system. FCPX's success here will be dependent on the degree to which Apple opens it up, via improved XML, other interchange formats, or APIs.

If metadata is finish line, I don't think the race has been decided yet. FCPX is too closed to be useful in collaborative environments or complex workflows -- the metadata only works in FCPX itself. Which will happen first -- will other developers like Adobe and Avid (with more open products) build robust metadata tools for editorial, or will Apple (with more robust metadata tools for editorial) open up their system?

I'm curious, Bill -- I've read many of your arguments here as essentially populist, stating that it's a waste of Apple's resources to develop the features needed only by the broadcast niche in the face of so much demand from larger market segments, and yet here you're talking about how FCPX would be a good fit for the broadcast niche.

Do you expect that Apple will double back and fill in the gaps for the markets they left behind last June, or do you expect that they'll continue developing solely for the broad middle? If the latter, do you expect that the overlooked niches will drop some of their requirements in order to be able to use FCPX?

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

Chris Harlan
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 30, 2012 at 8:08:23 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Why would they mention FCPX in the context of file-based workflows or merging IT with broadcast? FCPX (currently) does neither.

A file-based workflow is not the same as a tapeless workflow. FCPX thinks in terms of clips which are stored in events, not files which are stored in directories. Woe is he who manipulates FCPX's referenced media files directly outside of FCPX -- or tries to write a broadcast automation script which ties multiple tools together to do the same.

As for merging IT with broadcast, this will be impossible with FCPX as long as it remains a relatively closed system. FCPX's success here will be dependent on the degree to which Apple opens it up, via improved XML, other interchange formats, or APIs.
"


Totally agree. SMPTE has been working on IT-related sets of standards for metadata in file-based workflows for years, now. In fact it was one of the two tent poles (the other being developments in stereoscopic) of the Technical conference two years ago. FCPX's approach flies in the face of almost everything SMPTE is trying to do. I can see how, from a great distance, the subjects might look like they relate with each other, but in reality it is like saying that cocaine and voting are the same thing because they both involve lines.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 31, 2012 at 4:21:41 pm

[Chris Harlan] " in reality it is like saying that cocaine and voting are the same thing because they both involve lines."

Post of the week. Still a little time left in the month, but I've made my nomination.


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 31, 2012 at 5:25:00 pm

[Tim Wilson] "[Chris Harlan] " in reality it is like saying that cocaine and voting are the same thing because they both involve lines."

Post of the week. Still a little time left in the month, but I've made my nomination."


Maybe it's because I'm involved in politics but they are the same to me.
I look at how much money both the coke head and the candidate spend to get their lines and the rush that comes with it.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 31, 2012 at 12:30:05 am

Quoting Walter S. via iPad.
I'm curious, Bill -- I've read many of your arguments here as essentially populist, stating that it's a waste of Apple's resources to develop the features needed only by the broadcast niche in the face of so much demand from larger market segments, and yet here you're talking about how FCPX would be a good fit for the broadcast niche.

Do you expect that Apple will double back and fill in the gaps for the markets they left behind last June, or do you expect that they'll continue developing solely for the broad middle? If the latter, do you expect that the overlooked niches will drop some of their requirements in order to be able to use FCPX?
Close quote.

Walter.

Have thoughts but am on location for two overnight shoots with 5 am pickups on another project in between. Will respond, hopefully by Wed. (this kind of schedule was fun in my 20's. Now, not so much!)

"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: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 31, 2012 at 1:46:01 am

[Bill Davis] "Have thoughts but am on location for two overnight shoots with 5 am pickups on another project in between. Will respond, hopefully by Wed. (this kind of schedule was fun in my 20's. Now, not so much!)"

Overnights are no fun. I hope they go well. I'll try to be unreasonably argumentative when you return.

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


Michael Horton
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Feb 1, 2012 at 7:26:52 am

Not sure who said lafcpug changed it's name, but it wasn't me. lafcpug is still lafcpug unless someone hacked the web site.

Michael Horton
lafcpug
http://www.lafcpug.org


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:22:51 am

[Bill Davis] "Quoting Walter S. via iPad.
I'm curious, Bill -- I've read many of your arguments here as essentially populist, stating that it's a waste of Apple's resources to develop the features needed only by the broadcast niche in the face of so much demand from larger market segments, and yet here you're talking about how FCPX would be a good fit for the broadcast niche.

Do you expect that Apple will double back and fill in the gaps for the markets they left behind last June, or do you expect that they'll continue developing solely for the broad middle? If the latter, do you expect that the overlooked niches will drop some of their requirements in order to be able to use FCPX?
Close quote.

Walter. "



OK, Had some sleep, and wanted to address this.

As to my arguments being "populist" I guess there's a mild component of that - but I don't see it as a central one. There are true "populist" video tools that much better meet the needs of the "citizen editor" types. iMovie, Windows Movie Maker, et all, are designed specifically for that purpose.

To the extent that back in the day, the traditional editing system was something that only "corporate budget" types could afford, then FCP certainly helped "popularize" video editing, but I'm still comfortable in a world where only a relatively small percent of the whole pool o editors will take the time to invest in and learn the skills and use the tools of "professional editing" - and I'm fine with that.

One of the true charms of FCP-Legacy - from my view, is that most of us who initially popularized it (and I was there virtually from day one!) didn't come from the "top down" tradition of editing skills, but rather trained ourselves from the "bottom up." I think X will follow that arc very closely.

The big "hate" is coming from those at the top - who keep yelling about what it doesn't do that they need. It's fair, but just like the same contentions levied at Legacy in V1-3 - it largely misses the point.

Legacy started at the lower middle - but didn't serve the top. And here we go again.

In the three days between the start of this thread and now, the second contention has kinda been answered. The vast majority of features announced yesterday in 1.0.3 is aimed pretty clearly at the upper end of the editing spectrum. There is still lots of missing stuff, but clearly the target is to build a tool that works UP as well as DOWN the production spectrum.

And finally, no. I don't expect anyone to drop any requirement. If you need to do something that X don't do - then you shouldn't use it.

But that's not the problem that interested me much. Because I don't think "feature parity" is the path to success for X. In fact I think a race toward that is a race toward failure. That market is pyramid. It gets narrow at the top.

I think the path to success for X is to follow where the "new video" markets are emerging.

Video is increasingly consumed in new places, by people who have widespread needs.

Broadcast and Motion Picture needs are well documented and very specific.

But looking exclusively at that misses GIGANTIC parts of the real world spectrum.

What?

Imaagine X with it's data management pedigree in some of these areas. (Niche work in Sports broadcasting, and similar data pool search specific tasks, so I'll leave that off the list.)


But just consider how well it's toolset matches...
Digital Signage
Web video.
Training Videos
Corporate Communications
Advertising
Law Enforcement & Legal
Pay per download content...


I could keep going with dozens of others but you get the idea.

I acknowledge that other editing software can prepare content for these perfectly well - but - in my opinion, they don't have as targeted a feature set that makes them as well suited for these "not for broadcast" markets.

I think X will ROCK these industries. And as it does - it will get stronger and smarter and more capable, and eventually could land is WAY more than the 2 million seats that legacy earned in it's lifetime.

I don't think it's "democratization" as much as it's "industry-fication." Or maybe "niche-ification."

And that's where I see the larger opportunities for the future.


Hope that makes sense.

"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: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Feb 3, 2012 at 7:42:30 pm

Caution: long post ahead.

[Bill Davis] "The big "hate" is coming from those at the top - who keep yelling about what it doesn't do that they need. It's fair, but just like the same contentions levied at Legacy in V1-3 - it largely misses the point. Legacy started at the lower middle - but didn't serve the top. And here we go again."

Let's roll back to the introduction of Avid. There were two schools of thought:

A) This thing is the future!

B) This thing is unusable! The image quality is terrible!

Which one do you believe?

History shows the correct answer was C) Both of the above. How can that be? The first statement is forward-looking; the second statement is grounded in the present. They are not mutually exclusive.

Avid offline changed the industry, but it took some time to mature and didn't upset traditional online for years. (Funny story from a recent Editor's Lounge about an early Avid offline. The editor was cutting a scene with footage of an actor who was supposed to be dead; because the resolution was so poor, they couldn't see the actor breathing in the shot until the online, then had to scramble in a very expensive room to find a usable shot. Oops.)

There may be some hate coming from the top, but I think the bulk of that is really displaced love for FCP7. Since FCPX met your workflow needs straight out of the gate, you may have a hard time understanding the frustration that others who can't rely on it yet are feeling.

I don't think the FCPX 10.0 / FCP 1.0 comparison holds true. Apple disrupted Avid with FCP. Industries are used to new competitors launching disruptive products. What they are not used to is a market-leading competitor disrupting itself. That may be great business for Apple in the long run, or it may be a misguided consumer move in a professional market segment -- but that's immaterial. The thing that some people are so upset about is that on June 20th, Apple was selling them a product that had met their needs for eight years. As of June 21st, they do not sell such a product.

No one is holding FCPX wrong. It just really didn't work for some people.

FCPX might be cheese that someone moved, but no one in this forum is Hem (the mouse that stayed, waiting for his original cheese to return) anymore -- those who were have left. There are quite a few Haws (who initially yelled about missing cheese, but have since gone off in search of new cheese), but I don't think there are very many Sniffs or Scurrys here who actually foresaw that the cheese would disappear. There may be none of them at all.

You mentioned "the top" hating on FCP1-3. That's fair. FCP4 introduced XML, and FCP4.5 introduced DVCPRO HD, so I'd argue that's as good as place as any to mark the acceptance of FCP.

FCP4 was launched four years after FCP1. Even if Apple halves that time to get FCPX ready for the "the top," it'll still be two years of abandonment from the customer's perspective -- maybe more if you count FCP Classic's slow development over the last couple versions.

This is where the "skating where the puck is going" analogy fails. It's all well and good to think about where the puck is going, so long as you can confidently continue doing your work today. If FCPX works for you today, I can understand how you'd have that confidence. If it doesn't, maybe you can understand how it's hard to be excited about the future when you're not even sure about the present.

Gretksy could skate to where the puck was going because there was someone else who had control of the puck now. Here's a zen meditation for you: what happens when everyone leaves where the puck is now and skates to where the puck is going? Will it ever reach them?


[Bill Davis] "Imaagine X with it's data management pedigree in some of these areas. (Niche work in Sports broadcasting, and similar data pool search specific tasks, so I'll leave that off the list.)
But just consider how well it's toolset matches...
Digital Signage
Web video.
Training Videos
Corporate Communications
Advertising
Law Enforcement & Legal
Pay per download content..."


I think the toolset works well for small data. I'm really concerned about how it would work for big data. Imagine yourself five or ten years from now, and think about all the footage and data you will have amassed by then.

IBM sees three dimensions to Big Data [link]: volume, velocity, and variety.

Volume means we're amassing more data than ever before. Velocity means we're amassing it faster. Variety means our data is not all neatly structured as an individual datum we can stuff in a spreadsheet or database; assets like text, graphics, audio and video are totally unstructured.

FCPX starts to treat variety, creating some structures that the user can apply to their unstructured data. However, as long as this is a manual process for humans, the twin threats of volume and velocity threaten to overwhelm our ability to keep up on variety.

I suppose you could argue that FCPX is starting to treat velocity, with native format support, but that's still far from perfect [link].

FCPX offers no tools at all for managing volume.

You wrote a great line about FCPX and metadata a couple days ago:
[Bill Davis] "And what sets X apart from the competition? The elevation of data handling into a role arguably equal to image manipulation."


I think this is true, but Apple needs to push very, very hard to make sure that the tools they're providing for data handling are as suitable to the task as the tools for image manipulation.

If metadata is going to be a true advantage for Apple and for FCPX in ongoing projects versus one-offs, they must really innovate that toolset.

Maybe they will -- after all, they do have Final Cut Server in their back pocket. Or maybe they won't -- it just might not be the sort of feature they're interested in providing.

Regardless, it may not be a sustainable advantage. For FCPX to see big acceptance around big data, I think it will have to be pretty open (via XML or otherwise) for third-party extension. As soon as they open up, they essentially grant competitors compatibility (like Premiere Pro reading FCP7's XML). If everyone has the same plumbing, then we're right back where we started -- competing on editor preference and user experience.

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


Dan Hayes
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 29, 2012 at 7:41:29 pm

Actually Final Cut was never in the name. To the best of my knowledge it's always been called SF Cutters and still is. It's the organization that puts on the Supermeets that has changed it's name. They just announced it at the Supermeet in San Francisco.



Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 29, 2012 at 7:58:41 pm

Dan is correct. SFCutters has not changed its name. LA changed its name from LAFCPUG to LACPUG. It was announced at the San Francisco SuperMeet.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2012 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

Richard Cardonna
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 29, 2012 at 8:11:20 pm

Sorry for the confusion. I stand corrected the announscment was made in SF about th LA grooup.

RC


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 29, 2012 at 10:30:06 pm

So are people pronouncing it "Lah-see-pug" as a shortened "Laf-see-pug" or the more phonetically correct "Lak-pug"?

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 30, 2012 at 2:21:12 am

Obviously if Apple would have released FCS4 the groups wouldn't have dropped the "FC" from their names.
Without a common denominator lets see if those groups survive.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 30, 2012 at 3:18:55 am

[Rafael Amador] "Without a common denominator lets see if those groups survive."

I doubt the name change would have made the slightest difference.

What's killing user groups isn't any split in products - it's the general explosion of on-line knowledge.

Back in the day, the whole point of users groups were to share specialist knowledge amongst like minded local people.

Today everyone has instant access to all the knowledge they need via the net and places just like this one.

So you're left with social interaction. Period.

So the user group thrives, survives, or fades based (in my opinion) on one thing and one thing alone. The SHOW the group can put on. If it's tightly run, presentations are vetted for interesting content and that content is delivered well - then like a mini- NAB demo, people will come to see it.

If it devolves to just a room where a small group of folks gather to re-hash what someone can actually look up MUCH easier on the internet - then they will fade out.

Here in Phoenix, we used to have UGs for all the major software programs. No more. They've all faded to shadows of their former size.

In the final analysis, users groups thrive when they solve problems for their members. When knowledge is scarce, a group that has and shares such knowledge is valuable. But when the knowledge is broadly available, then the hassle of driving to a meeting and sitting through what you don't want to see to get to what you do find useful is pretty inefficient.

In most "group" settings, what actually keeps groups alive is the economic benefits they provide to members, time being money and all. I think the real problem with users groups is that in a sense they're like a big "leads group" where everyone is selling the exact same service.

And that's the real crux of the problem IMO.

FWIW.

"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

Lance Bachelder
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 30, 2012 at 10:13:48 am

As far as the LA group is concerned, not sure if this wasn't a mistake. They still draw good crowds to the Barnsdale regardless of the name. LA already has several other post groups including Avid and others. Mike Hortons FCP group helped grow FCP in LA for over a decade and it's sad that they would cave this early in the FCPX era.

Time will tell but what if in a year or so FCP is back on top? Will they change the name back? If not, that means anyone else can now come in to the biggest post market there is and start the LA FCP User Group. I would have waited at least until after this next NAB before throwing in the towel. Avid and Adobe will never draw the young excited crowds like FCP did in the early days at the LA Film School.

There's nothing cool or exciting or groundbreaking about using PPro or MC. We all felt like we were really starting something back in '99 with FCP and our blue and white G3's. But strangely, when I read a post by Bill Davis or watch a tutorial by T or sit working with Tonalizer inside FCPX, I get that little spark like it may just happen all over again... not right away, but I truly think FCPX could be the killer app we've all been waiting for...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 30, 2012 at 10:39:51 am

I didn't think waiting till after NAB would make any difference. All that's going to be at NAB will have nothing to do with FCP. If anything that might be the time to become the LAPremiereUG.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2012 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 30, 2012 at 2:11:42 pm

Not specific to NAB but one might hope the major revision of FCPX would be out by that time.

There will be another round of assessment between catchup features and features that might put it ahead of other NLEs. The challenge with the latter is that some won't recognize that because "ahead" my be tied to the "paradigm shift" that some don't value.



Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 30, 2012 at 7:46:24 pm

Exactly. I'm guessing Apple will release update BEFORE NAB. Man that would be sad thought to change to the Premiere group - I remember cutting a feature back in 2005 as an Adobe beta site and showing all the guys in the various suites PPro - they'd all laugh and go back to their FCP suites. Now they're all gonna switch? Next you'll be telling me the Cippers are gonna sell out Staples Center... oh wait...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Joseph Owens
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 30, 2012 at 9:41:22 pm

[Craig Seeman] "There will be another round of assessment between catchup features and features that might put it ahead of other NLEs. "

Craig, where were you when ITV was looking for a replacement for Formula One's Murray Walker. It would have been so much more entertaining than those years with that other guy who was slavishly devoted to Ferrari and M$chumacher. Wait a minute...

jPo

You mean "Old Ben"? Ben Kenobi?


Return to posts index

Kevin Monahan
Re: San Fransico FCPUG drops final cut from name
on Jan 31, 2012 at 12:57:32 am

The SF Cutters, a group that I co-founded, actually did have "Final Cut" in name at one point. In a vote by the group, we decided to call it "The San Francisco Final Cutters".

That didn't last long, though. People naturally shortened it to SF Cutters, because it was faster to say, and it stuck. I'm probably the one that did it first!

This was before many of you got into Final Cut Pro, though. Probably around 2002.

I'm glad the Final Cut in our name was dropped, however. We are one of the first to show other platforms. We showcased After Effects many times in our early incarnation. In fact, the SF Cutters continues to meet at the Adobe Offices here in San Francisco to this day.

Kevin Monahan
Sr. Content and Community Lead
Adobe After Effects
Adobe Premiere Pro
Adobe Systems, Inc.
Follow Me on Twitter!


Return to posts index

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