FORUMS: list search recent posts

One year later...

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>

Mark Raudonis
One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 4:47:07 am

Just got back from NAB 2012, and lots of people asked me, " If you hadn't changed yet, would you still make the same decision today to switch to Avid ?" My answer? "Unequivocally, YES I would."

There were plenty of announcements of new products, lower price points, and promising technology at this year's NAB. I saw heated competition in the NLE arena on land and even more so in the CLOUD. But the fact remains, one year later, FCP -X is still not a viable replacement for how we currently use FCP 7. So, yes, in my situation, I would still have to conclude that I can NOT wait for the required features we need to appear in "X".

To all of the passionate supporters of "X", I say "Good for you." I'm glad that you're able to work with it. For me, and the kind of projects (or is it events?) that we do, there are still too many missing pieces of the puzzle.

I hold no grudge. I have no hard feelings. It's NOT personal. It's business.

mark



Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 5:14:50 am

Interesting Mark. Is that partly because AVID is working now and CS6 is still unproven or is there something about AVID in your workflow that puts it ahead anyway.


MC6 or Symphony?


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 5:20:04 am

Hey Mark - great to meet you at the AJA booth. There was a lot of NLE buzz at NAB for sure - Smoke seemed to completely steal Avid's Symphony thunder and Premiere was everywhere.Thinking back to last year and the FCPX Supermeet takeover and June release fiasco - I wonder how many facilities that were FCP7 would have just waited it out if Apple had kept X under wraps until this year and shown 10.04 as the new FCP? Would all of the them still have switched or would more be making the transition to X? Not in your facilities case but in general?

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index


Mark Raudonis
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 5:57:18 am

Lance,

Delaying shipment for another year wasn't an option. Too much pressure to Ship... something, anything. So in Vegas terms, we end up with an Elvis impersonator, rather than the King himself. Even a year later, with the updates and "restored" features currently available, my decision stands. Moving forward, you have to answer two questions: WHEN will it do what I need? and... will it EVER do what I need. I think putting $100 on the craps table gives you better odds than the likelihood of guessing the answers to those two questions.


mark



Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 1:50:26 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "I wonder how many facilities that were FCP7 would have just waited it out if Apple had kept X under wraps until this year and shown 10.04 as the new FCP?"

The SCRI numbers (which show no market share erosion for Apple) and what we're seeing from our clients seems to suggest most people did just wait it out. Is this really that surprising? Editors/facilities often take a year or more just to install incremental updates to their current editing systems. That implies that a) there was no reason to expect FCP X to spark a sudden large-scale migration to other NLEs and b) even if FCP X 10.0.0 had shipped with more conventional features and had a more conventional interface it probably still would have seen very little immediate high-end adoption.

I said this last year -- that because the high-end market wasn't, for the most part, going to do anything very quickly, FCP X's 10.0.0 feature set probably wasn't going to be a big problem as long as Apple diligently filled in the more important gaps over the subsequent months -- which they were saying they would do, and which they have now actually done.

Meanwhile, of course, Apple has sold a lot of copies of FCP X to the (much larger) mid-range market, to the point where they're saying FCP X already has more users overall than FCP. And given its App Store ranking, it's probably one one of the best-performing Mac app in the world in terms of revenue. This makes it pretty hard to fault Apple's strategy of shipping a mid-range product ASAP and only subsequently adding higher-end workflow features.

Yes, they took a bit of a PR hit in forums like this in the process, but did this really do widespread long-term damage? Will a significant number of high-end FCP 7 customers for whom X is a good choice on its merits really choose something else as they finally do start to migrate away from 7 just because X had a rocky introduction that's now more than a year in the past? I was always skeptical of this. Internet firestorms around Apple products aren't all that rare, and never seem to hurt sales much.

I guess we'll find out over the next 18 months or so.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 2:31:32 pm

[Chris Kenny] "Yes, they took a bit of a PR hit in forums like this in the process, but did this really do widespread long-term damage? Will a significant number of high-end FCP 7 customers for whom X is a good choice on its merits really choose something else as they finally do start to migrate away from 7 just because X had a rocky introduction that's now more than a year in the past?"

You keep referring to "forums like this" as if this is the only place that has anything negative to say about X. I don't know what its like in NYC, but here in LA that is far from reality.

And "really choose something else?" "Migrate away?" FCP X is something else. The only thing it has in common with FCP 7 are the words "Final Cut Pro." Using other companies' software is actually a closer experience to using FCP 7, than using X. How is choosing X not choosing something else? How is going with it NOT migrating away from FCP 7.

I'm open to finding and using the benefits of FCP X, but right now its missing a lot of little tools that help me do my work, especially in audio, but also in basic things like sync indicators. And Roles may work, and hooray for someone who likes the approach, but they don't work for me.


Return to posts index


Chris Kenny
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 4:13:30 pm

[Chris Harlan] "You keep referring to "forums like this" as if this is the only place that has anything negative to say about X. I don't know what its like in NYC, but here in LA that is far from reality. "

The level of negativity in this forum is not something I've ever encountered in real-world interactions. Most of what I see in the real world is cautious interest or at worst skepticism, not hostility.

[Chris Harlan] "And "really choose something else?" "Migrate away?" FCP X is something else. The only thing it has in common with FCP 7 are the words "Final Cut Pro." Using other companies' software is actually a closer experience to using FCP 7, than using X. How is choosing X not choosing something else? How is going with it NOT migrating away from FCP 7."

FCP X is something new, yes. My point was that some people seemed to be predicting, 12 months ago, that there would be some mass exodus from FCP 7 starting immediately, such that any work Apple did to make FCP X suitable for higher-end users would come too late, as those users would already be on Avid or Premiere. This does not appear to have occurred. Apple has now added most of the critical missing features to FCP X, and consequently FCP X, while not the automatic choice for people moving off of FCP 7 (because it is, after all, a totally different app) will at least be in the running. (For anyone who isn't actively hostile, at least -- which I don't think most people, once you move beyond those fanning the Internet firestorm, actually are.)

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 4:39:55 pm

[Chris Kenny] "[Chris Harlan] "You keep referring to "forums like this" as if this is the only place that has anything negative to say about X. I don't know what its like in NYC, but here in LA that is far from reality. "

The level of negativity in this forum is not something I've ever encountered in real-world interactions. Most of what I see in the real world is cautious interest or at worst skepticism, not hostility."


Really? I believe you, but that hasn't been my experience at all. I find mention of it is usually met with a shudder, and then some sort of unbelieving, exasperated shake of the head. I find myself in the odd position, from time to time, of being an X defender. A lot of that is do to my experience on this forum. I understand how you might feel from your experiences here, last summer, but I believe this forum has developed a sense of objectivity that you are not giving it credit for. In your absence, we've also had quite a few deep, interesting discussions about structure in ways that I've found in few other places.

[Chris Kenny] "My point was that some people seemed to be predicting, 12 months ago, that there would be some mass exodus from FCP 7 starting immediately, such that any work Apple did to make FCP X suitable for higher-end users would come too late, as those users would already be on Avid or Premiere."

I'm sure that some people were somewhere, but I think the general opinion on this forum from very early on was that FCP 7 had at least 1-3 years life in it. I know that I expressed that early and often. I know a number of fellow posters did as well. Personally, I can't remember a single post where-in anyone was predicting an immediate mass exodus from FCP 7. Frankly, I can't imagine anyone that uses/used FCP7 in business making such a silly claim.

[Chris Kenny] "Apple has now added most of the critical missing features to FCP X, and consequently FCP X, while not the automatic choice for people moving off of FCP 7 (because it is, after all, a totally different app) will at least be in the running. "

I agree, especially now that it seems to be more stable. For a number of people, it is a good choice. Currently, it doesn't have adequate features for me to use it as anything other than an ancillary program. And, I don't know that it ever will. I work in a relatively specialized world, and I don't really believe that Apple is marching in my direction. They no longer have the incentive to do so. Luckily, other companies do. And, I'm okay with all of that.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 6:43:08 pm

My experience has been closer to Chris Harlan's than Chris Kenny's.

Whenever I run into someone (either online or in the real world) that is optimistic or interested w/FCP X I'm initially taken back because it happens so infrequently. Maybe it's because lots of the work that I do isn't, or doesn't appear to be, conducive to FCPX's workflow so maybe it's just that I don't swim in the circles that even see FCPX as a possibility. I don't know really.

W/o knowing more details about the SCRI numbers it's hard to know what they really mean. How many people are using FCPX day in and day out and how many played w/it for a few hours and haven't touched it sense? I mean, last year Adobe claimed some huge number of PPro installs (more than FCP classic) but how many of those are people actually using PPro vs PPro just came along for the ride in the CS purchase?

A few years ago a SCRI study showed FCP w/like 52% of the NLE market and Avid w/22% while an ACE survey from the same period showed like 80% of ACE members used Avid and 20% used FCP. W/o having more granular data (data that reflects your market, interests, workflows, and needs) the numbers aren't very useful in creating an accurate picture of what's going w/in all the niches that make up post production.


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index


Andrew Richards
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 7:17:05 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Personally, I can't remember a single post where-in anyone was predicting an immediate mass exodus from FCP 7. Frankly, I can't imagine anyone that uses/used FCP7 in business making such a silly claim."

I can remember claims to that effect, though not necessarily coming from facility bosses like our esteemed Mr. Raudonis and Mr. Biscardi. Tom Daigon and Grege Burke spring to mind as particularly vociferous mass-exodus soothsayers in this forum who walked their walk into the arms of Adobe and Avid last summer. There were others too.

Maybe the distinction is immediate mass exodus. But at the very least, there were plenty of exodus predictions to go around last summer.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 7:30:59 pm

[Andrew Richards] "I can remember claims to that effect, though not necessarily coming from facility bosses like our esteemed Mr. Raudonis and Mr. Biscardi."

Walter Biscardi dropped FCP within 6 months of the release. Bunim/Murray also switched within the year.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 3:58:28 am

[Herb Sevush] "Walter Biscardi dropped FCP within 6 months of the release. Bunim/Murray also switched within the year."

I know, I guess I worded that badly. I meant they weren't the ones proselytizing in the weeks following June 21 insisting that Apple had clearly signaled its intent and that anyone not throwing their Macs and iPhones on the bonfire was a fool. They just made business decisions and told us all about it.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index


Chris Harlan
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 7:31:58 pm

[Andrew Richards] "Maybe the distinction is immediate mass exodus. But at the very least, there were plenty of exodus predictions to go around last summer.
"


That is the distinction. We're just quibbling about people predicting "mass exodus from FCP 7 starting immediately." I'm in the process of leaving--meaning not using X as anything other than a side tool--myself. I still think FCP 7 will be useful in my trade for another year. Maybe more.


Return to posts index

Jason J Rodriguez
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 3:00:49 pm

[Chris Kenny] "Will a significant number of high-end FCP 7 customers for whom X is a good choice on its merits really choose something else as they finally do start to migrate away from 7 just because X had a rocky introduction that's now more than a year in the past?"

I work at what I feel is a fairly large broadcast production facility (Approx. 40 FCP seats in full-service editing suites, with another 40+ seats as offline "producer" seats), and as of right now we're not planning any other major Apple software purchases. While some of the producers or departments on their own may choose to migrate to FCPX, there is no over-arching plan to convert our FCP seats to FCPX. Instead the plan is, as machines and suites enter their upgrade cycles, to transition over to Adobe. This can be done as a pretty seamless transition process over the course of the next two-plus years since PPro will run on both Macs and PC's, so there is no need to replace all the Mac hardware with PC's and PPro at once. Additionally, Apple notebooks are still top-rank, so it would be nice to have the option of both platforms for the foreseeable future. In the end though, the years of Apple spurning our requests for forward-looking information and roadmaps has taken it's toll, and FCPX was the nail in the coffin that Apple created for themselves. We're tired of waiting for "secret" hardware updates (i.e., new Mac Pro's), and also tired of being left out of the feedback loop on their software roadmap. At the moment, Adobe is listening, Apple is not, so it's really not a difficult decision on our part.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 3:57:15 pm

Interesting. It would seem for you the issue is lack of roadmap. It seems Apple is beginning to change in that regard. This has been the case since they posted that they were working on multicam and broadcast monitoring. Now they're talking about MXF support. Of course for facility who need shared simultaneous project (event) access, no word on that. There's certainly no word on new systems. Apple does have a business model and they do it to benefit their business, not ours. I can live with that as long as there products benefit my business. It kills me too wondering if/what will replace the MacPro.



Return to posts index


Jason J Rodriguez
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 6:36:37 pm

[Craig Seeman] "It would seem for you the issue is lack of roadmap."

Pretty much every company we've ever dealt with was able to give us some semblance of a reliable roadmap. Apple is the exception to that rule.

[Craig Seeman] "Now they're talking about MXF support."

Yeah ... I remember at NAB 2005 being in a private suite in the Las Vegas Hilton with some top Apple Pro Video brass pretty much begging for a roadmap on MXF support. At the time all we got were obfuscations about "following industry trends" and "Now you know we can't tell you what Apple is planning in the future". After seven years they're finally getting around to implementing that feature.

At this point I think all Apple is worried about are iPads, and iPhones. As soon as it no longer makes economic sense to have OSX running on "real" computers in order to support iOS products, I'm willing to bet those products will get the boot too ... either that, or iOS and OSX will become one-and-the-same.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 7:01:30 pm

Apple has been revealing a road map for FCPX to some extent for some months now. It doesn't change the past but they are to some extent doing it now and to people who are not part of the past, that's all they will see.

MacBookPros and iMacs lead in their categories and Apple is the number 3 PC maker in the USA with sales in those categories going up while most of the computer industry is going down. This is hardy a company that's going to abandon a reliable growth market.



Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 7:24:44 pm

[Jason J Rodriguez] "At the moment, Adobe is listening, Apple is not, so it's really not a difficult decision on our part."

I think it is unfair to say Apple isn't listening. They aren't talking (much), but they insist they are listening. They have also now released in essence three consecutive near-term feature roadmaps, which is more than they ever did before. They delivered the first two with the features they promised in the timeframe they promised them in.

I can't argue they aren't needlessly secretive when it comes to certain product lines, and I sympathize with you vis a vis their long history of one-way customer communication.

But not talking and not listening are two very different things. One-way customer communication is very frustrating though, I get that.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 8:45:54 pm

Andrew Richards I think it is unfair to say Apple isn't listening. They aren't talking (much), but they insist they are listening.

If Apple was really listening, people would be upgrading to FCP 8 right now.

Adobe is listening, and Premiere Pro is starting to resemble a mixture of FCP 7 and Avid as a result. It appears that not many people asked Adobe to remove the source viewer and put in a magnetic timeline with no tracks...

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 4:00:55 am

[Greg Andonian] "It appears that not many people asked Adobe to remove the source viewer and put in a magnetic timeline with no tracks."

I've heard people asking for the ability to open more than one project at a time. Is Adobe listening?

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 4:10:06 am

[Andrew Richards] " Is Adobe listening?"

It doesn't work like fcp, it works like AE.


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 4:14:05 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "It doesn't work like fcp, it works like AE."

Yep. Different. For some, different is only bad if it is Apple's different.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 11:09:58 pm

[Andrew Richards] "I think it is unfair to say Apple isn't listening. They aren't talking (much), but they insist they are listening."

I hate beating a dead horse, but one could argue that if they were listening, we'd be able to keyframe the ColorFX. It's been asked for everywhere since 10.0 and it still isn't even listed for delivery in 2012...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Paul Nordin
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 10:30:40 pm

>> I hate beating a dead horse, but

Words that make me cringe and look for a different thread that isn't an endless circular boring conversation with no new information.

_______________________
EMB Studios
http://www.EMBstudios.com
Emeryville, CA
_______________________


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: One year later...
on Apr 22, 2012 at 5:42:19 am

[Paul Nordin] "Words that make me cringe and look for a different thread that isn't an endless circular boring conversation with no new information."

You seriously couldn't figure out the new information? Really?

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 4:11:36 pm

I'd add that the approach a new facility makes vs a well established facility makes may be very different. Today someone may consider starting with just a few FCPX seats, iMacs, DaVinci, ProTools and find a much lower point of entry. I think as the broader "middle" moves up the ladder they will overtake the older facilities. FCPX will continue to develop the features as those facilities grow.

On the other hand, established facilities have work flows they can't (nor shouldn't) break from and FCPX is missing key elements for them and waiting and guessing just isn't a good business decision for them.

Even RadicalMedia had to wait until FCPX got to a point it could meet his current facility needs. For some facilities waiting was not a good financial option. It's interesting to show how Evan and Mark, seeing the same product, made different decisions. It's not about right or wrong, the business models for the facilities are probably different. The workflows they needed supported are probably different.

Given SCRI numbers, Apple in all likelihood made sound decisions based on their own business model. I expect FCPX's growth pattern will be primarily in new facilities. As the industry changes, FCPX will, at least, be one of the leaders (IMHO). I don't see this much different that FCP legacy actually.



Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 4:23:21 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I'd add that the approach a new facility makes vs a well established facility makes may be very different. Today someone may consider starting with just a few FCPX seats, iMacs, DaVinci, ProTools and find a much lower point of entry. "

This.

If I were building a new facility today for in-house create editorial (i.e. not suites rented to outside editors, where you have just offer what they want), the 'standard' editing machine would absolutely be iMac + Thunderbolt RAID & video I/O + FCP X.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 4:29:14 pm

[Chris Kenny] "If I were building a new facility today for in-house create editorial (i.e. not suites rented to outside editors, where you have just offer what they want), the 'standard' editing machine would absolutely be iMac + Thunderbolt RAID & video I/O + FCP X."

Totally reasonable, but just one solution among many to one challenge among many.

With lower costs and more open hardware, I'm not seeing a need to choose sides. Put all the tools in your toolbox, and use the best one for the job at hand.

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: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 4:40:49 pm

[Walter Soyka] "With lower costs and more open hardware, I'm not seeing a need to choose sides. Put all the tools in your toolbox, and use the best one for the job at hand."

Hear, hear!


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 5:07:00 pm

I'm sure Apple will be quite happy if you're running it all on an iMac. That's actually their intent IMHO.
Actually this was a very good NAB for Apple with Smoke for Mac (running on iMac and MBP) and the buzz around Blackmagic Cinema Camera using Thunderbolt, HFS+ format, DaVinci, Ultrascope (the closest to a Steve Jobs "One More Thing" product post Jobs) and a little bit about a roadmap through Larry Jordan.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 4:51:23 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Put all the tools in your toolbox, and use the best one for the job at hand."

I mean no disrespect when I say this, but I can't see this happening.

The "buy them all and use them all" approach is unsustainable, not from a cost standpoint today, but from an management and data archive standpoint, and let's not forget the sanity standpoint as it's rather important.

This means that whatever system you go with, you will "forever" have to buy that system if your legacy projects mean anything to you. I understand that it's not "one app fits all", but to have potentially four NLEs and manage all of that for the next 5-10 years seems a bit nutty. Let alone the fact that you will have to stay current on 4 different NLEs.

Right now, there's a lot of parity in the NLE world between hardware, keyboard shortcut modifiers, and interchange languages (thanks in part to XML, and Quicktime, yikes). What if those world diverge? What if Avid's next move is to start over?

What if two years from you decide MC isn't the right way? Or PPro or FCPX?

This means that in two and a half years when the client calls about the project from two years ago, you will have to buy one of these applications just to maintain the archive. Seems like it's too much, or maybe I'm just a peon and it's just too much for me. My decision isn't going to be based on a filter set/tape transport alone. I still can't find an answer if Smoke 2013 has interchange out beyond OMF. Does it?

At least FCP7 left XML in it's wake and I will most likely be able to boot an old disk image on a future mac.

There's one thing I have learned "one year later" and that's make sure that your project can be saved in some other format than the proprietary .WhateverCompany project file. And it's yet another reason why we haven't moved much.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: One year later... NOW: standardizing on one tool or using them all?
on Apr 20, 2012 at 5:37:17 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I mean no disrespect when I say this, but I can't see this happening."

No disrespect taken. I think there's room for a ton of discussion, pro and con, and I'm sure that there's no one correct answer. I hope to hear a lot of opinions on this topic.

If you stick with one NLE, you are exposed to all its weaknesses. If you use multiple NLEs, you minimize your exposure to any one NLE's weaknesses, but assume much greater complexity. It's a trade-off. It's not the right call for everyone, but it may be the right call for some.

If I were a freelance creative editor that used to use FCP7 exclusively, you can bet I'd be learning MC, Pr and FCPX.

In your business, I suspect your infrastructure and project management -- and their stability -- is a competitive advantage. I'd guess that many of your projects are fundamentally similar, so you would be penalized for reinventing the wheel on every project.

In my business, we often have to fit into other people's pipelines. The projects often have different requirements, so I'm forced to reinvent the wheel on each project to an extent.



[Jeremy Garchow] "The "buy them all and use them all" approach is unsustainable, not from a cost standpoint today, but from an management and data archive standpoint, and let's not forget the sanity standpoint as it's rather important."

Data archive is already a disaster. You need to keep a copy of FCP7 around forever for all those .fcp projects, unless you had the foresight to start exporting XMLs of your projects back in 2004.

I've been shrieking like a banshee here about interchange for almost a year, and this is one reason interchange is so incredibly important.

It's also the reason that primetime broadcast episodic TV requires those old dinosaur EDLs as a part of the deliverable. They don't care what system you cut something on -- they care if they can recreate your cut if they have to. It's a degree of protection against an uncertain future.



[Jeremy Garchow] "Right now, there's a lot of parity in the NLE world between hardware, keyboard shortcut modifiers, and interchange languages (thanks in part to XML, and Quicktime, yikes). What if those world diverge? What if Avid's next move is to start over?"

DPs use different cameras all the time, exploiting their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses. Why should post be different?

If I have a heavy mograph piece in a custom resolution, I'd like to work on it in Pr/AE because anything else would be painful. If I had a mixed format documentary style project, maybe I'd prefer FCPX. If I'm finishing an existing project from FCP7, maybe some combo of FCP7/Resolve/Smoke is appropriate. If I'm doing a reality series, Avid offers a killer workflow from start to finish.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I still can't find an answer if Smoke 2013 has interchange out beyond OMF. Does it?"

Sorry, I forgot to answer this. I'll go back and put it in the other thread. I don't know what Smoke 2013 will do, because it's still a work in progress, but Smoke on Mac 2011 exports EDL and OMF.

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: One year later... NOW: standardizing on one tool or using them all?
on Apr 20, 2012 at 7:37:07 pm

[Walter Soyka] "If you stick with one NLE, you are exposed to all its weaknesses. If you use multiple NLEs, you minimize your exposure to any one NLE's weaknesses, but assume much greater complexity. It's a trade-off. It's not the right call for everyone, but it may be the right call for some.

If I were a freelance creative editor that used to use FCP7 exclusively, you can bet I'd be learning MC, Pr and FCPX.

In your business, I suspect your infrastructure and project management -- and their stability -- is a competitive advantage. I'd guess that many of your projects are fundamentally similar, so you would be penalized for reinventing the wheel on every project.

In my business, we often have to fit into other people's pipelines. The projects often have different requirements, so I'm forced to reinvent the wheel on each project to an extent."


So now that FCP7 is gone, you all of a sudden have to retrofit your pipeline, and buy windows, linux, nvidia an iMac, a sizzle core beast, cs6, mc6, symphony, smac, vegas, edius, pro tools, logic, and the Blackmagic "Cinema Camera"?

Now that FCP7 is gone, you have to reinvent the wheel?

I guess what I don't get is when someone says, "I'm sticking with Avid for broadcast, and Premiere for web videos". Avid can't deliver a web video?

I have mentioned, that if I was a freelancer, I would have to learn to love whoever is feeding me, and that's fine. If I was cool enough to work @radicalmedia, I'd probably have to get on the FCPX train.

I am not against learning new things, believe me. It's just that the argument of "throw them all in the tool box" doesn't make any sense to me, as there's simply not enough time in the world to learn it all.

Or projects are similar in the fact that we shoot and edit. Every single one is different. Yes, we driver to tv, web, and the occasional blended projection, and sometimes to PAL standards. They are all different.

[Walter Soyka] "Data archive is already a disaster. You need to keep a copy of FCP7 around forever for all those .fcp projects, unless you had the foresight to start exporting XMLs of your projects back in 2004.

I've been shrieking like a banshee here about interchange for almost a year, and this is one reason interchange is so incredibly important.

It's also the reason that primetime broadcast episodic TV requires those old dinosaur EDLs as a part of the deliverable. They don't care what system you cut something on -- they care if they can recreate your cut if they have to. It's a degree of protection against an uncertain future."


Yes, archive and dragging legacies is hard enough. Adding fourteen more applications "to the toolbox" isn't going to solve this. I have a tiger drive that I can still boot from my Lion machine. The MacOS hasn't let me down in the respect. Yet. I don't see it letting me down soon. In the future, yes, I will need to keep a working boot drive of FCP around for as long as I possibly can. This next go around, I am going to try and avoid keeping four NLEs around for the same amount of time. It seems a bit contrived or unnecessary.

Soon, EDLs simply won't be enough.

Eventually, the projects will fade. They have happened for all the old Media100 projects I have on zip/jaz drives.

[Walter Soyka] "DPs use different cameras all the time, exploiting their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses. Why should post be different?"

Even though there's too many tapeless formats, they are all based on a standard. A windows NLE, a Mac NLE, a Linux NLE can all ready a Panasonic created MXF file. Avid cannot read an FCP project, can't read a Flame project, can't read a Premiere project. There's a big difference.

[Walter Soyka] "If I have a heavy mograph piece in a custom resolution, I'd like to work on it in Pr/AE because anything else would be painful. If I had a mixed format documentary style project, maybe I'd prefer FCPX. If I'm finishing an existing project from FCP7, maybe some combo of FCP7/Resolve/Smoke is appropriate. If I'm doing a reality series, Avid offers a killer workflow from start to finish."

I just don't see it this way. Avid has it's strengths, so does Premiere. While FCPX is the new kid on the block and needs to do some pushups, it also has some strengths. But why do I have to cut web videos on Premiere when I could do the same with Avid, or vice versa?

In your case, if you cut custom resolutions, why can't you also do a mixed format doc in Premiere at 1080?

Again, I am not discouraging anyone from learning new things, but buy the tool that's right for you, which doesn't mean you need to buy the entire tool aisle.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: One year later... NOW: standardizing on one tool or using them all?
on Apr 20, 2012 at 7:41:22 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I am not against learning new things, believe me. It's just that the argument of "throw them all in the tool box" doesn't make any sense to me, as there's simply not enough time in the world to learn it all. "

On this as well as everything else you wrote in this thread I am in complete agreement.

Let's not have this happen too often though, it might ruin my reputation.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: One year later... NOW: standardizing on one tool or using them all?
on Apr 20, 2012 at 8:23:17 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Now that FCP7 is gone, you have to reinvent the wheel?"

Now that FCP7 is gone, we are all invited to re-invent.

FCP7 was very flexible, and people forced it into all kinds of workflows where it may not have been the best option. It was a Swiss Army knife, and people used it to slice fruit and fell trees.

Now we have the opportunity to step back, evaluate our workflows, and pick the NLE that works best -- not figure out what workaround to employ to shoehorn our favorite NLE into our workflow.



[Jeremy Garchow] "I guess what I don't get is when someone says, "I'm sticking with Avid for broadcast, and Premiere for web videos". Avid can't deliver a web video?"

Agreed, you can do pretty much any kind of work with any one of the tools.

However, they all also have different personalities and different product-specific features that give them benefits over competitors in different workflows.



[Jeremy Garchow] "I am not against learning new things, believe me. It's just that the argument of "throw them all in the tool box" doesn't make any sense to me, as there's simply not enough time in the world to learn it all."

You're right. I was overly simplistic in my original premise.

Buying something and then not using it is a waste of money. I'm in business, and I certainly can't afford to collect packages just to have them. If you can't drive it, or if you can't commit to learning it, save your money.

That said, many of us on FCP came from Avid to begin with, and Premiere will feel pretty familiar to an FCP editor.

I still feel a bit slow in Premiere versus FCP, for example, but even with my lack of muscle memory, I can save a lot of time iterating a graphics-heavy piece with AE/Pr dynamic link versus rendering graphics out and replacing edits in FCP.



[Jeremy Garchow] "Even though there's too many tapeless formats, they are all based on a standard. A windows NLE, a Mac NLE, a Linux NLE can all ready a Panasonic created MXF file. Avid cannot read an FCP project, can't read a Flame project, can't read a Premiere project. There's a big difference."

The point of my DP example was not post-oriented. I was saying that a director of photography chooses a specific camera or lens for what it will contribute to the project or even the shot at hand. He or she does not force the same camera and lens into every shot with no consideration for its unique strengths and weaknesses.

Interchange is possible among the NLEs.



[Jeremy Garchow] "I am not against learning new things, believe me. It's just that the argument of "throw them all in the tool box" doesn't make any sense to me, as there's simply not enough time in the world to learn it all. "

There are plenty of Hollywood editors who know both MC and FCP inside-out. Beyond that, editors everywhere are now expected to be editors, colorists, audio mixers, graphic designers, motion designers, and visual effects artists.

If you're an editor, learning a new NLE is a walk in the park compared to even scratching the surface on any of these other disciplines, let alone the specialized applications they require.



[Jeremy Garchow] "Again, I am not discouraging anyone from learning new things, but buy the tool that's right for you, which doesn't mean you need to buy the entire tool aisle."

We're not talking about that many tools. You say don't buy the whole tool aisle. I agree. But I do say that learning a couple tools is well within reach of a working editor today, and they are all pretty inexpensive now, and you can pretty much run them all on the same hardware.

Personally, I don't care about Edius, Lightworks, or Vegas. I think Premiere will work best in general for me in my internal work, but I've got Avid and FCP7 (and my own history and experience with both packages) ready to go for pieces that have started elsewhere. I worked at getting familiar with FCPX, and if an FCPX project comes in the door on Monday, I'll work harder at it.

Evan Schechtman showed an example at NAB in the Autodesk booth of a spot that saw rough cut on FCP7, fine cut on FCPX, and finishing on Autodesk Smoke. The facility model is to use multiple tools, each for their strengths, to manage the quality-speed-cost triangle. Individual editors can do the same thing today for a couple thousand dollars and a couple hundred hours.

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: One year later... NOW: standardizing on one tool or using them all?
on Apr 20, 2012 at 9:15:11 pm

[Walter Soyka] "FCP7 was very flexible, and people forced it into all kinds of workflows where it may not have been the best option. It was a Swiss Army knife, and people used it to slice fruit and fell trees."

I would say that XML was immensely flexible (after a lot of work on it), but FCP itself was not that flexible. It was poplar because of price, wasn't tied to an other hardware besides a CPU, a lot of creatives were using Macs back in the 90s/00s.

FCP was not flexible, it was Mac only, and you needed to be immensely tied to quicktime which made sense when everything was on tape, but outside of that and in this digital age? FCP7 is not very flexible.

[Walter Soyka] "I was saying that a director of photography chooses a specific camera or lens for what it will contribute to the project or even the shot at hand."

It's a different model, and that was my point. You can't rent NLE's (although Adobe, very smartly, is trying to change that), but you can rent a $125,000 Optimo for a couple of days for way less than the down payment on that lens and attach it to a wide variety of cameras, cheap to expensive.

I think we are getting off topic, sorry.

My point is, I have heard over and over to throw it in the tool box. I won't be buying everything, I will make a decision, just as Mark has. I just happen to be one of the ones who hasn't moved on quite yet as the answer is not that obvious.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: One year later... NOW: standardizing on one tool or using them all?
on Apr 20, 2012 at 9:25:41 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "My point is, I have heard over and over to throw it in the tool box. I won't be buying everything, I will make a decision, just as Mark has. I just happen to be one of the ones who hasn't moved on quite yet as the answer is not that obvious."

Well -- you will almost certainly be buying Premiere Pro, if you have a need for Photoshop and After Effects. Premiere licenses will end in a lot of people's hands, even if they never park that icon on their docks or task bars.

But given that standardizing on a single NLE is a better decision for your company, I'd be curious about a couple questions on your decision-making.

What was it about FCP that encouraged you standardize on it in the first place?

What are the questions you need answers to about your other NLE options in order to make your decision going forward?

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: One year later... NOW: standardizing on one tool or using them all?
on Apr 20, 2012 at 10:31:23 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Well -- you will almost certainly be buying Premiere Pro,"

I've bought Premiere Pro since it came to the Mac CS Production Permium!!!

They have done a nice job with CS6, we will see if it fits the bill. ;)

[Walter Soyka] "What was it about FCP that encouraged you standardize on it in the first place?"

What encouraged me to even try it in the first place was when I was thinking about moving out on my own.

I was in school working at an edit house a couple of days a week. There were a couple of M100 SD stations that had After Effects as Media 100 didn't have great graphics/layering capabilities in the early days. I wanted a system that I could work on when ever I wanted, and not wait for extra time at the studio, and FCP3 was the one I could afford. After I graduated, that studio hired me full time and I edited in Media 100 for years.

At that time, everything was going DV. Beta was in decline. As much as people talk about budgets getting slashed and equipment getting cheaper, that was the beginning of it, we've seen it all before. Then there was HD. The "same" workflow that I had learned in FCP 3 was going to apply in 4.5 in HD (I remember FCP 4.5 being a huge update...and it was free. Blew my mind at the time). I had luckily hooked up with some Varicam gigs, and tried it all out. I quickly realized I was going to need more than my current gear set. After using FCP in real gigs coming from Media100 (which was all SD at the time, Media 100 HD was just being released, and it was an uncompressed monster. It had totally kick ass hardware, but it wasn't doing the Varicam VFR stuff that FCP was over firewire, and we would have had to really update our storage systems at that time).

I kept going on FCP after that, and then amicably left that place, and stuck with FCP. Then it was time for the G5, the Kona, the HD monitor, etc and so forth. Organically, it become the NLE of choice for the people that I worked with. The bigger houses that mostly standardized on Avid sadly went out of business. The world changed. The rest is history.

Since everywhere I was looking for work was using FCP, it made the decision easy. If Avid was kicking butt at that time, I'd be editing on Avid. Media 100 was bounced around to different sales partners and wasn't really "innovating". BorisFX finally caught up with them, but we were all in to FCP at that point. 720p VFR was what really kept me to FCP. That's kind of crazy now that I think about it that way.

[Walter Soyka] "What are the questions you need answers to about your other NLE options in order to make your decision going forward?"

I'm not sure if I have questions so much as I am waiting for someone to arrive at the same conclusions. I also know that building systems like these takes a ton of work (and time), so I need to be realistic on what I can expect from any particular company. I know what I want, and FCP7 ultimately isn't really what I want, but it got me started and it stuck for a good long run.

Now?

I am waiting it out as nothing has hit me over the head, Captain Obvious style. There's a lot of shiny, blinky toys to try out. I am excited to give them a look and I certainly can't make sight unseen decisions when it comes to an interface. We aren't in a huge hurry. Realistically and honestly, FCS3 will probably last us to the next NAB if we really need it to. Look at Red, they introduced the Red Epic package for FCS3, woot! The next NAB will have given developers real time to catch up and focus. That is the best part of this whole situation, it will force other developers to listen as there's a big wad of patient FCP refugees to potentially capture, at least that's how I see it.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: One year later... NOW: standardizing on one tool or using them all?
on Apr 21, 2012 at 5:08:41 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "FCP was not flexible, it was Mac only, and you needed to be immensely tied to quicktime which made sense when everything was on tape, but outside of that and in this digital age? FCP7 is not very flexible."

I guess its how you define flexible. By your definition nothing was flexible. The few NLEs that weren't confined to a single operating system were confined to proprietary hardware. And, if it wasn't tied to Quicktime, that simply meant that it was tied to AVIs.

For the record, and from an editorial point of view, FCP 2-7 was one of the most flexible NLEs I had ever seen, and that IS why I eventually chose it over many other now forgotten rivals. It could approach any given editorial question from so many different directions that its flexibility often amazed me. At that point, I had worked on so many different NLEs with so many truly different metaphors--each with their strengths and weaknesses--that finding one that embraced most of the strengths was astounding. I could treat timelines like bins, have multiple timelines open and operating on different monitors, could cut and paste, drag and drop, insert and over right, slide clips around, lasso chunks. It had great compositing features and unlimited video tracks. You could make transitions on the same track or you could build them in a stack. It just goes on and on.

And, it wasn't the only relatively cheep NLE out there. There were many. People forget this. Or just aren't old enough to remember it. So, for the record--I chose (and changed platforms for) FCP BECAUSE of its extreme flexibility. That was my number one reason for choosing it.

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Walter Soyka] "I was saying that a director of photography chooses a specific camera or lens for what it will contribute to the project or even the shot at hand."

It's a different model, and that was my point. You can't rent NLE's"


Of course you can.

[Jeremy Garchow] "My point is, I have heard over and over to throw it in the tool box. I won't be buying everything, I will make a decision, just as Mark has. I just happen to be one of the ones who hasn't moved on quite yet as the answer is not that obvious.
"


I can't afford that luxury, though it is always tempting to try. I think of it more like a good musician does. Through the course of my career I find myself able to play a whole variety of instruments, learning and enjoying them as I go, but I'll only be a virtuoso on one or two.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: One year later... NOW: standardizing on one tool or using them all?
on Apr 21, 2012 at 6:06:35 pm

[Chris Harlan] "For the record, and from an editorial point of view, FCP 2-7 was one of the most flexible NLEs I had ever seen, and that IS why I eventually chose it over many other now forgotten rivals."

Of course you're right Chris, it's the most flexible NLE ever, with a zillion ways to do anything. This is why it's missed by so many in spite of its age and imperfections.

[Jeremy Garchow] "FCP was not flexible, it was Mac only, and you needed to be immensely tied to quicktime which made sense when everything was on tape, but outside of that and in this digital age? FCP7 is not very flexible."

Come on Jeremy. Your definition of flexible is so incredibly limited above. The ability to work with all I/O cards and devices on the market made FCP more flexible than AVID or Adobe or any other NLE. Are you forgetting that AVID's new open interoperability is just that, "new." And, are you forgetting that the drivers for all I/O devices on the Windows side, going way back to CS4, were always "iffy" and always months or years behind those delivered for FCP?

Then there's collaborative workflows that made it flexible, and the zillion ways to do things I mentioned above.

Gosh, how quickly we seem to forget... The question I want to know is, why are you still using FCP7?

David Roth Weiss
ProMax Systems
Burbank
DRW@ProMax.com
http://www.ProMax.com
Sales | Integration | Support


David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: One year later... NOW: standardizing on one tool or using them all?
on Apr 21, 2012 at 7:04:43 pm

David-

If you read this subthread, I have answered your questions.

A zillion ways to move a clip in the timeline maybe, but there was not a zillion ways to do anything, especially as the video and computing industry around it started getting more advanced around it.

Chris is right, it's how you define flexible. My flexible might be your limited, and vice versa.

You might hate the FCPX Event structure, I might find it one of the most powerful "next steps" shown in an NLE to date that reflects the current and future state of media. To each their own. it has nothing to do with price, it has noting to do with level of professionalism or lack there of, it has to do with usefulness.

It's the reason Mark Raudonis chose Avid, and it's the reason I am still waiting to test all the latest offerings. Let's remember that CS6 and Autodesk aren't on the market yet.

Fcp7 was flexible as long as you followed certain rules. XML was the most flexible part of fcp7 as it allowed you to control data outside of fcp and bring it back in, but FCP7 itself didn't have those controls built in to it.

My idea of flexibility may go beyond a bin structure, which in my opinion may have had a place and time along with subsequent metaphor, but not so much to me anymore. But that's me and how I operate and it might not apply to everyone.

Fcp7 was great in its day, it's now time for something different. I'm not saying it's necessarily fcpx, or cs6, or smoke, but I will know it when I see it. Fcp7 stills works for us today as well as it did on June 21st, 2011. Eventually, it won't.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: One year later... NOW: standardizing on one tool or using them all?
on Apr 21, 2012 at 6:33:29 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I guess its how you define flexible. "

Absolutely.

Don't get me wrong, fcp7 became very popular for a reason, but it's dated.

Even M100 had multiple open sequences and could do much better things with nests/bins, had real time alpha channels, had far better audio mixing and filters, had a robust codec..... In 1999.

Fcp7 barely has real time alphas today, and they didn't arrive until fcp7.

I maintain that XML is immensely flexible, but fcp7 is not. It is time to move on. There are great things that can be done with data and today's NLEs should reflect that. They are working on it.

[Chris Harlan] "Of course you can. "

Not like you can a lens, or camera. Come on now....

We can call and rent a lens at 10AM and be shooting by 12. It's not the same.

Creative Cloud will change that a bit, though.

[Chris Harlan] "And, it wasn't the only relatively cheep NLE out there. There were many. "

Where are they now?


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: One year later... NOW: standardizing on one tool or using them all?
on Apr 20, 2012 at 8:49:25 pm

[Walter Soyka] "If I were a freelance creative editor that used to use FCP7 exclusively, you can bet I'd be learning MC, Pr and FCPX."

yes - I'm in a round robin email with a few other editors on getting an order in on box set deliveries of Avid Symphony, with printed manuals for £862.50.

there is no way on God's earth I'm not, and this goes for a lot of us, buying and learning that application at that once in a lifetime price point.
(once in a lifetime unless blackmagic buy Avid that is :)

Premiere is a lock - its very close to current practise coming from 7, and I'm swimming in Adobe seas for the rest of it, those seas are Mediterranean for me.
I think Premiere is going to eat FCP7's market share to a really significant degree - that just makes sense to my head, given Adobe's policies on communication, and their obvious strong desire to advance in the editing market. 6 is a transformative upgrade to that application.

FCPX, to a certain degree, really isn't hard to get ahold of, and Alex Lindsey swears by it as his daily editor, Steve Connor just cut a film shot in India on it, and with .04 - he reports that it takes the entire 90 minutes without hiccuping, he's had it broken down into three or four segments before.
That said there are real issues with the autosave architecture, and some posts here on what has happened to work in progress are fairly terrifying.

It's new though like, and Apple are after the market.

[Jeremy Garchow] "The "buy them all and use them all" approach is unsustainable, not from a cost standpoint today, but from an management and data archive standpoint, and let's not forget the sanity standpoint as it's rather important."

Sure - but the point is, given the extreme fluidity of the situation, the completely unprecedented position we're in with all software providers going like gangbusters for the market, as a freelancer, you really have no choice but to be fairly well gamed up on Avid and Premiere in addition to7 - I give less weight to X, because as of right now, in the world, we can point to two to three facilities and a German guy.

that may well change, but right now, if you expect to get paid to edit, you should not expect to be editing on FCPX.

there may well be this 'wider world of editing' but it doesn't take invoices.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: One year later... NOW: standardizing on one tool or using them all?
on Apr 20, 2012 at 9:09:25 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Sure - but the point is, given the extreme fluidity of the situation, the completely unprecedented position we're in with all software providers going like gangbusters for the market, as a freelancer, you really have no choice but to be fairly well gamed up on Avid and Premiere in addition to7 - I give less weight to X, because as of right now, in the world, we can point to two to three facilities and a German guy.

that may well change, but right now, if you expect to get paid to edit, you should not expect to be editing on FCPX.

there may well be this 'wider world of editing' but it doesn't take invoices."


Yes, freelancing on other's gear is different, as I mentioned before.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: One year later... NOW: standardizing on one tool or using them all?
on Apr 20, 2012 at 9:30:08 pm

for sure, you swim in different scale facility waters - we're more darting our gaze madly in all directions -

Although nicely, everyone seems to be holding out choccie bars and profoundly better software?

it does feel like Adobe are stepping up in a particularly serious way - and with clear meaning and intent. Thank God frankly.
that adobe guy who was demoing at Nab on fresh DV- he was making camera eye contact as often as he could when he was outlining the scale of change in the app. right down to the nitty gritty, like footage in use indicators in the bin, scrubbing IO set clip methodology in the bin etc.
nevermind the new trim architecture.
You have to feel Adobe are palpably serious here. And the only way they make money is if we buy the thing.

....and then, in the case of Avid, we're getting crisp twenty dollar bills! and a lot of them - simply to get on board with an industry lodestone.

it's not too shabby really.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: One year later... NOW: standardizing on one tool or using them all?
on Apr 20, 2012 at 10:38:58 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "for sure, you swim in different scale facility waters - we're more darting our gaze madly in all directions -

Although nicely, everyone seems to be holding out choccie bars and profoundly better software? "


Profoundly! Yeah, maybe. It is true, a person can't resist the choco bars being handed out around now.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "it does feel like Adobe are stepping up in a particularly serious way - and with clear meaning and intent. Thank God frankly.
that adobe guy who was demoing at Nab on fresh DV- he was making camera eye contact as often as he could when he was outlining the scale of change in the app. right down to the nitty gritty, like footage in use indicators in the bin, scrubbing IO set clip methodology in the bin etc.
nevermind the new trim architecture.
You have to feel Adobe are palpably serious here. And the only way they make money is if we buy the thing."


Adobe's communication is commendable. There is no joking about that. It is quite obvious they are listening intently. Can't wait to see what they do with it.

My fear with any company is that they try and go to FCP7 like. FCP had some great strengths, but at the same time, it could have been much better and needed major improvements. I would hope that any company moves forward in a confident direction. Not every NLE has to be like FCP7, and it shouldn't be.

As has always been said, the best NLE would be a mixture of all of them.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: One year later... NOW: standardizing on one tool or using them all?
on Apr 20, 2012 at 11:20:28 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Adobe's communication is commendable.... Can't wait to see what they do with it."

I think one can see pretty clearly what they have done with it - it looks pretty damn good? there's a beta tester down the thread saying 6 is as solid as a rock, it has avid scale trimming tools, FCPX bin scrubbing (with a viewer), genuine USP tasties like warp stabiliser (don't you just love that thing? for promos?)

I have been pretty consistently rooting for it, but I don't actually think this release requires rooting for. The toolset is ferocious, its 64 bit, cross platform, its opening into CL..

so say as an editor - he said grandly... your concerns would be asset acquisition, management and categorisation, timeline/modal trimming for story and output no?-

this thing dynamically trims as well as Avid, say the people who actually know what they are doing, I know I can operate in the timeline as I have in FCP, and instead of being in FCP, I'm in a kissing cousin of AE and PS?

But, the thing I find genuinely interesting about all this, is that adobe look to have analysed and fully replicated Avid's renowned dynamic trim workflow, in a heavily compressed competition driven timeframe.

And this after ten years of Apple completely failing to do anything like the same.

I never knew, until I saw the full Avid demos a few months ago, how obviously critical dynamic trimming could be, and.. it's interesting to say the least, that Apple never got it together in ten years, the current incarnation X with the precision trimmer has nothing like it, in fact worse, given the conflict between the skimmer and the timeline marker, the play forward, slap spacebar stop to mark doesn't work to my understanding?

bottom line: Adobe put an entire best in class editing trim architecture together quick smart for uncomplicated, competitive reasons.

If I'm going to be a prisoner with a dilemma as Hurd has put it - as an editor, I would far, far sooner be a prisoner of Adobe than Apple.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: One year later... NOW: standardizing on one tool or using them all?
on Apr 21, 2012 at 12:53:03 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "so say as an editor - he said grandly... your concerns would be asset acquisition, management and categorisation, timeline/modal trimming for story and output no?- "

From the demos, Adobe has done a fine job. The amount of listening and public communication is unprecedented, in as much as I can remember any NLE company to be. Production, at it's very nature is collaborative and Adobe is collaborating as much as they can, I would imagine.

Warp stabilizer goes beyond shiny demos. It's awesome. I'm glad to see it in premiere.

Dynamic Link is also very very good.

My guess is Speedgrade will need some more time in the oven to get fully interacted in the suite, but it will be useful at first, and get better.

As Oliver Peters said, these types of very creative and useful features are where Adobe simply excels.

Whenever a new workflow or piece of gear crosses the desk, I always take it through an entire workflow. Input, organize, edit, collaborate, collect finished assets, conform (a big deal), then master to multiple formats, mostly file, but sometimes rs422 layoffs, then archive. Then the proof happens and I restore it on another machine.

This is the type of testing where the rubber meets the road. I want to see what happens when dynmaicly linked clips go offline and are asked to be restored on another machine. I want to see how xmls, OMFs and aafs work. I want to do the same for Smoke. From what I can gather, Smoke has no interchange out besides OMF and maybe EDL. Sure EDL is still useful, but it's not very deep.

This crazy tapeless world is extremely deep.

Native format editing is awesome, but what about consolidation? How hard is it, how easy is it? How portable is it?

It seems these days that no project is ever finished. I need things to be flexible and restorable, and also collaborative.

Adobe and Autodesk have my attention, now I need to see what they do with it.

Jeremy

*Edited as I typed this from my phone and missed a few things.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 6:01:44 pm

Agree that would totally work but don't forget the T-Tap from AJA - simple Thunderbolt to 10bit HDSDI/HDMI (yes both at same time) for $245! No cables, no power, great for on-set and client monitor set-up. This was one of the hottest items at NAB this year. http://www.aja.com/en/products/t-tap/#/overview

I figure since I use Photoshop almost daily, After effects and Illustrator often - I'm gonna have Premiere on my system and CS6 looks pretty good so that's always an option. But the idea of using a different NLE for a particular job drives me crazy, don't wanna do it. Don't care if it's Smoke, FCPX Premiere etc. but it would be nice to settle down with one NLE again... at least for a few NAB's...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 7:01:49 pm

[Chris Kenny] "If I were building a new facility today for in-house create editorial (i.e. not suites rented to outside editors, where you have just offer what they want), the 'standard' editing machine would absolutely be iMac + Thunderbolt RAID & video I/O + FCP X."

And if I were advising someone I would recommend Windows boxes, where for the same or less price you have a much larger choice of GPUs, and with PCIe and USB3 you can customize exactly what you want at a great price; and for software any of PPro, Avid, Edius, Vegas or Lightworks that suits your needs. Greater variety, more customization and less subject to the whims of any single company, especially those who might decide they know more about your work than you do. I'd also suggest they brush up on Linux and have a Linux boot stick ready and waiting.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 7:05:32 pm

[Herb Sevush] "And if I were advising someone I would recommend Windows boxes, where for the same or less price you have a much larger choice of GPUs, and with PCIe and USB3 you can customize exactly what you want at a great price; and for software any of PPro, Avid, Edius, Vegas or Lightworks that suits your needs. Greater variety, more customization and less subject to the whims of any single company, especially those who might decide they know more about your work than you do. I'd also suggest they brush up on Linux and have a Linux boot stick ready and waiting."

Just curious, but have you done any of this yet?

I'm not calling you out, I am just wondering if people really are buying every system, OS and GPU available, and still working their day jobs, or sleeping.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 7:23:38 pm

Funny I talk to my Mac fanboy friends about this all the time. While I've had Macs and PCs running since the Windows 3.1 and OS7 days, most of my production friends are Mac only. And most of them are mad at Apple for FCPX... so they exact their revenge by installing Premiere or Avid or whatever on their Mac?

I'll show Apple, I'll use my iPhone less and maybe not buy as many tracks on iTunes and when the new iMac ships I'll have someone else install the RAM for me... I'm gonna make them pay!

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 7:27:35 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm not calling you out, I am just wondering if people really are buying every system, OS and GPU available"

The idea isn't to buy everything available. The idea is that you "can" buy anything available.

If I buy an Imac I'm stuck with a small selection of GPU's. I can use Tbolt for connectivity but I don't think it will be as fast or flexible as PCIe 3. I'm stuck with the built in Apple monitor.

The Imac encapsulates much of what I never liked about Apple in the first place - closed system, limited options. The rewards of Apple's design philosophy are stability and efficiency. I guess I value flexibility over stability. Which in another thread many months ago I mentioned as reasons I didn't like the design philosophy of FCPX. I'm nothing if not consistent.

If there is no new MacPro or equivalent come June I have a multitude of vendors, price points and system designs to choose from in the PC world. I'm comfortable with any of those choices, it comes down to matching hardware to software.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 7:40:23 pm

In this area I see Herb's point.
I'll point to this barefeats GPU test
http://barefeats.com/wst10g14.html

And note Rob's comments
Now that you've seen how fast the Radeon HD 7970 (and GeForce GTX 580) performs compared to the Mac OS X compatible GPUs, aren't you "speed freaks" feeling a bit jealous of the Windows PC users? Are you feeling a little neglected by Apple? Couldn't they at least release a new GPU kit while we are waiting for the next Mac Pro?

I'd note that they did this on a bootcamped MacPro. Even that's part of the issue since some have a concern that there may not be a Mac computer that the user can swap out the GPU card.

I'd add that the reason I can run FCPX on my MacPro 2008 was because I was able to change the GPU. It is a real concern that if a program is upgraded or new software comes out and needs a new GPU, you want to be able to look at what GPUs are available and purchase/install.

I'm not sure being constructed in choices is inherently a problem but it can be in some circumstances.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 7:48:18 pm

[Craig Seeman] "In this area I see Herb's point."

What's this forum coming too? First I agreed with a post by Jeremy, now this.







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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 7:28:54 pm

[Chris Kenny] "If I were building a new facility today for in-house create editorial (i.e. not suites rented to outside editors, where you have just offer what they want), the 'standard' editing machine would absolutely be iMac + Thunderbolt RAID & video I/O + FCP X."

iMac + Thunderbolt SANlink & video I/O + FCP X + Xsan/StorNext

Fixed that for you. We are talking about a facility, right? :-)

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 4:26:21 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Even RadicalMedia had to wait until FCPX got to a point it could meet his current facility needs."

... and they are still kind of waiting. FCP7 is still in their pipeline.

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: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 4:56:57 pm

Yes, there are still some things FCPX is not the most viable tool for. It really comes down to do what extent you can use it now and to what extent you can wait. The answer to that depends on the business model (including job types) of the facility.

I think some of those who like FCPX are bothered by the "all or nothing" attitude . . . that FCPX is not capable of any professional workflow. It certainly is capable for some workflows and that will expand as the feature set expands. Also amongst the features are the cost benefit especially relative to not yet implemented features.



Return to posts index

Lemur Hayop
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 8:43:07 am

Business for Apple meant releasing FCPX in its infancy so newbies can grow with it. Newbies who don't know/care about NAB or what prose use. It's $299 plus a Mac that makes Apple phat with this NLE. The silent majority has "spoken" and reportedly FCPX sells pretty well on the App Store. Apple know$ wha$$up!


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 2:31:28 pm

[Lemur Hayop] "Newbies who don't know/care about NAB or what prose use."

Unless they want to get into the business...move to Hollywood or NY or other major market and find work. Then they want to know what the pros use. But if they are doing their own thing...FCX is fine.

I too think it has come a long way, and if Apple released FCX 10.0.3...the features that it has in 10.0.3, the reaction would have been a lot different. I wouldn't have thought they didn't care about the pro market. But now it is too late, I'm back to Avid for most of my broadcast work for more than one reason (still using tape being a big factor), and FCP 7 and Adobe CS6 for the rest.

I think that FCX 10.0.4 is great software, and that many will get great use from it. I, like Mark (because we do pretty much the same sort of TV...but I to TV docs) find that Avid MC6/Symphony 6 better suit our needs.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 3:44:13 pm

[Shane Ross] "I think that FCX 10.0.4 is great software, "

The sky. It's falling, falling right out of...the sky.


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 7:47:26 pm

[Shane Ross] "I too think it has come a long way, and if Apple released FCX 10.0.3...the features that it has in 10.0.3, the reaction would have been a lot different. I wouldn't have thought they didn't care about the pro market. But now it is too late..."

This sentiment puzzles me. Had they waited to release FCP X in January, 2012 instead of in June, 2011, it would mean they care about professionals? Either way, they did the development and the features are there now. Why are those features any less for the pro market just because they were added in increments over the course of six months? Why is Apple's development work on those features any less an effort to support the pro market because it shipped them after the initial release? As Mr. Soyka is keen to point out- it is very unlikely the features of 10.0.3 were all developed up from nothing after 10.0.0 shipped.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 8:47:23 pm

[Andrew Richards] "
This sentiment puzzles me. Had they waited to release FCP X in January, 2012 instead of in June, 2011, it would mean they care about professionals?"


I think I see where Shane is coming from. To me, and I may be off base here, if you are going to launch a new product you are going to put your best foot forward towards your core demographic first and I feel like if Apple wanted to target the 'level' of professional that needs b'cast monitoring, multicam, etc., those things would've been higher on the priority list. They would have been there at launch while import from iMovie and share to CNN iReporter would've been added in later updates.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that plus other things that happened signals to me that Apple is targeting a different demo w/FCPX. Will they take higher end users? Of course. Will they add higher end features? Sure. But, if push comes to shove, those things will take a back seat to the wider user base that they are targeting.


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 1:50:33 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that plus other things that happened signals to me that Apple is targeting a different demo w/FCPX."

See, I think this is the key point. People are assuming that because FCP 7 had these high-end features and 10.0.0 didn't, it means Apple's focus has shifted, presumably with long-term implications for high-end users.

But I think people may be misjudging what FCP's primary target market actually was. What if FCP has always been primarily targeted at the wider world of video editing, and the main reason it had high-end features 10.0.0 lacked is some combination of the fact that a) it had been in development for long enough for Apple to get around to lower-priority niche market features and b) it was actually an outside acquisition in the first place, meaning even the 1.0 release might not have fully conveyed Apple's focus?

If this is true, it stands to reason that if Apple's focus managed to produce a tool that met the needs of high-end users last time around, there's no reason to believe it won't do so again.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 3:18:30 am

[Chris Kenny] "If this is true, it stands to reason that if Apple's focus managed to produce a tool that met the needs of high-end users last time around, there's no reason to believe it won't do so again."

When/if it does how many of the high-end users are going to be the market to switch NLEs... again? And why toss the baby out with the bathwater on the rebuild if that's a market you want to keep? If FCPX didn't ship with Import from iMovie or Share to CNN iReporter I don't think anyone would've raised a fuss over those missing features at launch.

For a long time I've wondered about Apple's commitment to the higher end of the market. They buy Shake, they kill Shake. They make an exclusive deal w/RED and they do nothing with it. Color, Final Cut Server... it's like Apple wants that feather in their cap but they don't want to do the demanding, end-user-centric work in order to get it. Ron Brinkman even said that when Apple purchased Shake all user input was basically severed.

I'll try and find the link, but I remember reading an interview w/one of the guys that worked on FCP during the early days (like v1.0 early days) and he was surprised when the project lead said the goal was to get Avid. Obviously they couldn't go from nothing to king of the hill over night but that was the long term goal. To go toe to toe with Avid.

Maybe that still is the goal but they are going to do it by building a more profitable business as opposed to building a better product. ;)

For better or for worse Avid and Adobe need higher-end users so, as long as there is competition, those companies will cater to those higher-end users. Apple, for better or for worse, doesn't need higher-end users so they'll keep doing whatever it is they want to keep doing. If higher-end users like it, I'm sure Apple will be glad to sell it to them. If higher-end users don't like it I'm sure Apple will be glad to sell to the wider market that does.

-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 4:11:19 am

[Andrew Kimery] "For better or for worse Avid and Adobe need higher-end users so, as long as there is competition, those companies will cater to those higher-end users."

I agree Avid needs the high-end customers, since they buy the big iron that makes Avid its real money. Adobe? They make money by selling as many copies of CS6 as they can (among their other product lines, which are actually a much larger portion of their overall business), and they sell more CS6 if they target the broad middle as much or more than the very high end. Courting the high end is good for Adobe's marketing and mind-share, but it doesn't make them proportionally more money since they aren't in the hardware game. A seat of CS6 sold to a wedding videographer makes Adobe the same amount of money as a seat sold to a Hollywood editor. There are a lot more of the former than the latter out there.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 4:34:38 am

[Andrew Richards] "I agree Avid needs the high-end customers, since they buy the big iron that makes Avid its real money. Adobe?"

Poor choice of words on my part. I was trying to avoid the 'what is pro' bear trap and it didn't quite go as planned.

What I meant was, the core demographic for Avid and Adobe are professional users. The same isn't true for Apple. Apple could drop Logic, Motion, FCPX, Compressor & Aperture and it would be like a semi running over a squirrel.


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 7:07:45 am

[Andrew Kimery] "What I meant was, the core demographic for Avid and Adobe are professional users. The same isn't true for Apple. Apple could drop Logic, Motion, FCPX, Compressor & Aperture and it would be like a semi running over a squirrel."

Adobe wouldn't suffer all that much without Premiere. After all, it hasn't been taken very seriously to date, and they've been doing just fine. It's not clear how many additional copies of Creative Suite Adobe can even sell by improving Premiere. For instance, if we decided to migrate to Premiere here, it would result in zero additional sales for Adobe, as the systems we'd use it on already have Creative Suite licenses which were purchased to get Photoshop/Illustrator/AE/Encore. This is probably true for a lot of potential Premiere users.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 7:15:48 am

[Chris Kenny] "Adobe wouldn't suffer all that much without Premiere."
I was talking about Adobe's entire professional line of software, not just PPro (which I agree is the ugly duckling of the bunch). I don't think PS Elements would sustain Adobe for very long. ;)

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 12:04:26 pm

[Chris Kenny] "Adobe wouldn't suffer all that much without Premiere. After all, it hasn't been taken very seriously to date, and they've been doing just fine. It's not clear how many additional copies of Creative Suite Adobe can even sell by improving Premiere. For instance, if we decided to migrate to Premiere here, it would result in zero additional sales for Adobe, as the systems we'd use it on already have Creative Suite licenses which were purchased to get Photoshop/Illustrator/AE/Encore. This is probably true for a lot of potential Premiere users."

I think many people miss what I consider to be the main point - namely the workflow of Production Premium in its entirety. In this case, Premiere Pro is the 'hub' application - where things like After Effects, Photoshop and others feed into the main organizational, story-telling tool.

From a business side, lacking a serious NLE client in the suite WOULD hurt sales because it would be incomplete. While Avid, FCP, et al users wouldn't be affected, there are many MANY who would.

Your statement of using Premiere Pro would increase Adobe sales by zero is true for you and others, but for many larger organizations who are determining which NLE to use in the future, they have different groups like graphics vs. editorial that would result in new seats. As a person who primarily focuses on broadcast and large media companies, I've seen many different variations of this over the last couple of years.

http://adobe.ly/yE60YD

The above is a statement of 2010's growth in video - prior to FCP X. I can tell you that our growth for 2011 with FCP X out in the wild wasn't too bad either. ;-) That growth had to come from somewhere and I would tell you that it's my personal belief that it comes from a complete suite of tools and workflow that are most compelling to those users who purchased Production Premium in the last two years.

While you may dismiss Premiere Pro (and that is your prerogative) , there are evidently a number of people who are taking Premiere Pro seriously in the pro market.

Respectfully,
Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 2:25:54 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "I think many people miss what I consider to be the main point - namely the workflow of Production Premium in its entirety. In this case, Premiere Pro is the 'hub' application - where things like After Effects, Photoshop and others feed into the main organizational, story-telling tool."

I get the argument for integrated tools, and I'm sure for some types of projects (VFX-heavy music videos or commercials that have the edit, composting, graphics, etc. all done under one roof, for instance) it's extremely useful. But my reaction is the same as it is to Smoke's integrated toolset. This sort of thing seems like it's hugely important to a couple of market segments, and not really all that useful to others. For instance the kind of integration you're describing wouldn't do us much good with our indie feature projects -- editors in our world choose software they enjoy using (because they're going to be cutting with it for months) with effectively no regard for workflow considerations, VFX and graphics are usually done by outside facilities, and everything is going to end up getting fed into some color grading system that isn't part of Adobe's ecosystem in the end anyway.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 2:55:27 pm

[Chris Kenny] "editors in our world choose software they enjoy using (because they're going to be cutting with it for months)"

agree 100% and that is our goal. We will not please everyone, but we are making significant progress to that goal.

[Chris Kenny] "everything is going to end up getting fed into some color grading system that isn't part of Adobe's ecosystem in the end anyway."

Have you heard about Speedgrade?


http://success.adobe.com/assets/en/downloads/guides/SG_CS6_Intro_Reveal.pdf

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/no-stupid-questions-with-colin-smith/introduction...


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 3:03:38 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "Have you heard about Speedgrade?


http://success.adobe.com/assets/en/downloads/guides/SG_CS6_Intro_Reveal.pdf

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/no-stupid-questions-with-colin-smith/introduction....."


Yes, but again, a lot of production workflows aren't the sort of end-to-end-under-one-roof affairs that make this kind of integration work. Often when an indie feature starts cutting, nobody on the production has any clue what facility will be grading the project or what software they'll be using, and the offline editor wouldn't pick a particular NLE just to make things easier for the online facility even if they did know.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 5:47:26 pm

[Chris Kenny] "everything is going to end up getting fed into some color grading system that isn't part of Adobe's ecosystem in the end anyway."

[Chris Kenny] "
Yes, but again, a lot of production workflows aren't the sort of end-to-end-under-one-roof affairs that make this kind of integration work. Often when an indie feature starts cutting, nobody on the production has any clue what facility will be grading the project or what software they'll be using, and the offline editor wouldn't pick a particular NLE just to make things easier for the online facility even if they did know."


My point was to correct a potential thought that Adobe does not have color grading as a part of our ecosystem. Indeed we DO have a color grading application. That was all. I get your point about not necessarily having dedicated workflows in types of production and I will not debate the correctness of it. ;-)


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 6:30:14 am

[Andrew Kimery] "When/if it does how many of the high-end users are going to be the market to switch NLEs... again?"

This question assumes they'll switch to a competing product in the meantime. Truth is, most of the critical higher end features have already been added back to FCP X (or are available from third parties in its ecosystem), and no mass exodus seems to have occurred. When classic FCP users do look for something new, FCP X should be right there in the running.

[Andrew Kimery] "And why toss the baby out with the bathwater on the rebuild if that's a market you want to keep? If FCPX didn't ship with Import from iMovie or Share to CNN iReporter I don't think anyone would've raised a fuss over those missing features at launch."

I find that very unlikely. The only realistic way Apple could have changed the perception of who was being targeted with the first release would have been to hold the entire release until additional high-end features could be implemented. Even then, the pump was primed -- there were many people already buying into the "Apple is abandoning pros" narrative (ironically because an FCP replacement hadn't shipped yet). People were looking to fit anything Apple shipped into this narrative -- it would have been very hard to avoid.

[Andrew Kimery] "Obviously they couldn't go from nothing to king of the hill over night but that was the long term goal. To go toe to toe with Avid.

Maybe that still is the goal but they are going to do it by building a more profitable business as opposed to building a better product. ;)"


There are two ways to unseat a competitor -- build a better equivalent product, or build a product that redefines the market to make their product irrelevant. Apple is to some extent taking a hybrid approach with FCP X. They're supporting some standard industry formats and practices, but also trying to push the industry the way they think it should go.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 6:39:27 am

[Chris Kenny]"This question assumes they'll switch to a competing product in the meantime. Truth is, most of the critical higher end features have already been added back to FCP X (or are available from third parties in its ecosystem), and no mass exodus seems to have occurred. When classic FCP users do look for something new, FCP X should be right there in the running."

I suspect this is wishful thinking. My read of the market in my area is that FCPX is not on the radar as a replacement for FCP7. Some have already jumped to AVID or CS5.5 but many more are now saying that sometime this year they will add AVID and /or CS6 to their system. Many still want to squeeze life out of their MacPros and FCP7.

Almost no editors or facilities that I talk to consider critical high end features to be sufficient in FCPX in spite of efforts by third parties. Indeed the perception is that only because of third parties is FCPX vaguely a consideration.


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 6:50:04 am

[Michael Gissing] "I suspect this is wishful thinking. My read of the market in my area is that FCPX is not on the radar as a replacement for FCP7. Some have already jumped to AVID or CS5.5 but many more are now saying that sometime this year they will add AVID and /or CS6 to their system. Many still want to squeeze life out of their MacPros and FCP7. "

I've seen zero interest thus far in Premere among real-world contacts, and a lot of FCP users chose FCP over Avid for reasons that continue to hold, or perceive Media Composer as a risk because of Avid's dicey financial situation and long-term market share erosion.

[Michael Gissing] "Almost no editors or facilities that I talk to consider critical high end features to be sufficient in FCPX in spite of efforts by third parties. Indeed the perception is that only because of third parties is FCPX vaguely a consideration."

We seem to keep hearing that FCP X's feature set is still considered insufficient, but I can't help but notice that unlike a year ago there aren't many specific features being mentioned.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 12:29:09 pm

[Chris Kenny] "I've seen zero interest thus far in Premere among real-world contacts, "

Our mileage differs. I hope your opinions are based on observation rather than wishful thinking. Personally I am NLE agnostic so I am only interested in reporting what other tell me. My decisions are purely based on serving the most popular systems.

"We seem to keep hearing that FCP X's feature set is still considered insufficient, but I can't help but notice that unlike a year ago there aren't many specific features being mentioned."

Again wishful thinking and observational bias. Just today on this forum issues like keyframing, auto saves, opening multiple sequence, copying file attributes were mentioned. For me I add lack of machine control, the fact that the output via SDI is still not video and audio synced. Yes I can work around these things but why should I?

The only reason why specifics are not being mentioned is because many here have just grown tired of reminding the forum of what is still missing. Great that our list is getting smaller.

Once the list is gone we can then just look at the NLE in direct comparison to systems that already offer the 'must have features' that define our workflows. Until then do not misconstrue our lack of constant lists of complaints as compliance or acceptance that we will do without, not now that Autodesk, Avid and Adobe are making serious strides in the right direction. Rather take it as a sign that we are giving up on Apple in the short term and moving to those viable options. By all means Chris, stay and argue the cause. Just don't be surprised if we remain unconvinced.


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 2:38:00 pm

[Michael Gissing] "Again wishful thinking and observational bias. Just today on this forum issues like keyframing, auto saves, opening multiple sequence, copying file attributes were mentioned. For me I add lack of machine control, the fact that the output via SDI is still not video and audio synced. Yes I can work around these things but why should I?

The only reason why specifics are not being mentioned is because many here have just grown tired of reminding the forum of what is still missing. Great that our list is getting smaller. "


It used to be the case that there were big, critical headline features missing, that made FCP X fundamentally unusable in certain workflows. A tool that couldn't put an image on a broadcast display and couldn't move a sequence to Resolve was totally useless to the projects I work on, for instance.

The kind of omissions/annoyances that remain today are not like this. They're more like the sort of gripes people used to a particular app routinely have with alternative apps. Should there be selective copying of clip attributes? Sure. But let's say this transition were working in reverse -- that you'd been editing on FCP X for years and were moving to FCP 7. I suspect you'd find all sorts of feature omissions of similar or larger scale in FCP 7. Yet FCP 7 was (and still is) widely used for high-end editorial.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 6:47:45 am

[Chris Kenny] "there were many people already buying into the "Apple is abandoning pros" narrative (ironically because an FCP replacement hadn't shipped yet). People were looking to fit anything Apple shipped into this narrative -- it would have been very hard to avoid."

I remember hearing it first when FCS3 came out in 2009. They were underwhelmed with the upgrade feature set. In fact I think that's why some jumped so quickly after FCPX. They'd been waiting since 2007 for a "big" feature upgrade.



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 7:12:40 am

[Chris Kenny] "I find that very unlikely. The only realistic way Apple could have changed the perception of who was being targeted with the first release would have been to hold the entire release until additional high-end features could be implemented. Even then, the pump was primed -- there were many people already buying into the "Apple is abandoning pros" narrative (ironically because an FCP replacement hadn't shipped yet). People were looking to fit anything Apple shipped into this narrative -- it would have been very hard to avoid."

You find it unlikely that people would not have complained if Import from iMovie wasn't a feature at launch? ;)

I agree that if FCPX would've launched with high-end features enabled that would have given a different perception to the launch. And what you are saying furthers my hypothesis. At some point during the development of FCPX the choice for launch features was set (iMovie thumbs up, XML thumbs down). If it was a time crunch issue why didn't they get started on development earlier? I'm sure w/all of Apple's in-house development experience they could do a good job of planning out realistic development schedule.

Honestly, I think the resources got pulled to work on iOS projects, which also explains the final, lackluster update to the FC Suite, and so there was a rush job to get FCPX out because they natives were really getting restless.

Which, again, goes back to my point that when push comes to shove the ProApps users are going to be placed on the back burner (If Mac OS development can be delayed because of iOS I assume anything can). It makes total business sense for Apple but does it make business sense for someone like me that uses these tools for a livelihood? Sure, Avid and Adobe might not be reinventing the wheel (though they are both doing a better job of supporting old media and new media workflows than Apple currently is) but I don't worry about the next version of MC or PPro getting delayed, or under-delivered, because they diverted massive internal resources to work on an iDevice app. I can't say the same for FCPX.

W/all that being said it's not like I'm ruling out FCPX forever. If I see potential gigs start using it I'll pick it up but I doubt I'll make it my go-to NLE like FCP classic was.


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 2:05:55 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I agree that if FCPX would've launched with high-end features enabled that would have given a different perception to the launch. And what you are saying furthers my hypothesis. At some point during the development of FCPX the choice for launch features was set (iMovie thumbs up, XML thumbs down). If it was a time crunch issue why didn't they get started on development earlier? I'm sure w/all of Apple's in-house development experience they could do a good job of planning out realistic development schedule."

Despite the bad PR, it seems to have been the correct choice for Apple to ship as soon as it had a release suitable for mainstream editors, rather than waiting on high-end features -- they seem to have sold a lot of copies over that first 12 months, after all. Consequently, had they started earlier, I imagine they'd still have done a minimalistic initial release.

[Andrew Kimery] "Honestly, I think the resources got pulled to work on iOS projects, which also explains the final, lackluster update to the FC Suite, and so there was a rush job to get FCPX out because they natives were really getting restless."

I suspect the final lackluster update to FCS was due to resources being pulled to FCP X, and was also an illustration of why FCP needed to be rewritten from the ground up -- a lot of the features people would have wanted in that update were probably impossible to implement within the old codebase. Native support for non-QuickTime media, better use of GPUs and multicore processors, 64-bit, etc. This stuff just wasn't reasonably possible in a creaky old Carbon app.

[Andrew Kimery] "Sure, Avid and Adobe might not be reinventing the wheel (though they are both doing a better job of supporting old media and new media workflows than Apple currently is) but I don't worry about the next version of MC or PPro getting delayed, or under-delivered, because they diverted massive internal resources to work on an iDevice app. I can't say the same for FCPX."

As I noted previously, Premiere is probably not one of Adobe's more important products (and because of the way almost everyone buys CS apps in bundle form, it's not even clear how many actual additional sales improving Premiere with produce for Adobe), and Media Composer faces some risk posed by Avid's problems at the corporate level. It's not immediately obvious to me that FCP X is the most risky long-term choice here. It's true that it's not Apple's primary focus, but Apple has 250x Avid's revenue and actually sells a smaller number of products than Avid does, so it doesn't logically follow that FCP X will receive less investment than Media Composer.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 5:57:16 pm

[Andrew Richards] "This sentiment puzzles me. Had they waited to release FCP X in January, 2012 instead of in June, 2011, it would mean they care about professionals?"

If they had released FCX with all the features 10.0.3 had, the reaction would have been less..outrage. We would have seen that broadcast monitoring was still on their minds, and that multicam was important. God...with how good multicam is in FCP 10.0.3, we might have overlooked a few things.

But it still has the problem of not believing that tape, other than HDV, exists. Yes, it works with BMD and AJA and Matrox...but output only. MONITORING only. For tape capture, you need to use the utilities provided by the card makers....and for many workflows, that is unacceptable. Tape output...fine, that works fine. Can't update projects from FCP 7? Apple didn't care to do that themselves. Yes, third party apps do that...but the fact that those were made so quickly, requiring little effort, begs the question, why didn't APPLE do it? Because they didn't want to.

And I still wouldn't use it due to the magnetic timeline. Roles be damned...I organize things on the timeline, so I know what is where. FCX just has things loosey goosey on the timeline and that makes finding things a bit more difficult.

FCX is great for many people. It is solid software. But it isn't for me. And Apple's new attitude towards the professionals, that it used to cater to and rely on just angers me. So, I won't use it. Just like how Avid did a lot of stuff I did, until their attitude towards us was arrogant and dismissive, and they did not fix things that needed fixing.

I talked to a guy who teaches editing. He teaches FCP for a few weeks, then FCX...then editing practices and theory. He says the new students pick up FCX in a snap, and are still confused by FCP 7. He doesn't teach Avid or Adobe, so no comparison there. So that tells you a great deal about the future of the app. It will go places.

I just won't use it. I have no need for it, I have other options. But I won't scoff at those that do use it. If they can deliver what is required with this software...that's all that really matters.

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


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 7:05:36 pm

[Shane Ross] "If they had released FCX with all the features 10.0.3 had, the reaction would have been less..outrage.....And I still wouldn't use it due to the magnetic timeline...."

I agree with both, but I like the second sentence more than the first. :-)

It was understandable to focus on the things that were missing, for reasons and specific workflows we've all talked about. But even in the equally understandable excitement over features coming back, I don't see that the "solutions" that Apple provided addressed problems that people had. "If they'd just get that damn source window out of the way I could REALLY fly." Most people just didn't feel a need for so many basic conventions to change. For you and others, the solutions caused more problems, without answering the problems you actually had.

The irony is that, among the reasons that the other A companies are finding traction in new ways is that they kept many conventions, while also providing actual features that people had been hoping for from FCP for a very long time.

I mean, if you think about it, the last big deal in FCP for many people was ProRes in 2007, which means that the big change before that was 2005. (Which really WAS big, starting with multicam.) THAT's why people were so "fast" to jump -- after years of waiting, it was clear that Apple wasn't going to provide what they were looking for....

Unless Apple did. And for more people than I think we acknowledge, Apple DID.

That's why I completely agree with you, Shane, that FCPX's long-term fate will be fine, and so will Apple's place in the pro market. Your anecdote about students and FCPX is critical to understand. Apple -- like Adobe, Avid and Autodesk -- have long focused on students on the keys to their products' long-term success. Today's sk8trboi is tomorrow's film school/media school graduate, and after using FCPX+ for 4 or 6 years between skateboards and mortarboards, they may well have little incentive to even consider switching, even as working film and TV pros: FCPX is clearly on the way to re-integration into distributed workflows, and tape will fade even further away.

I actually the next year will be the one that tells a more interesting tale. The dust has settled on Apple's course. Adobe, Avid and Autodesk (to say nothing of DaVinci Resolve) have released the most elegant, robust versions of their software EVER, with insane price adjustments for Symphony and Smoke. These companies now have a different place to begin building a new heritage.

Throw in some slick new workstations from HP, Dell getting back in and now ProMax getting in the game, balance against a new MacBook Pro this summer, iMacs that work really well for some workflows (including Smoke, which was specifically optimized for them), new budget cycles rolling around -- NOW I think we're going to see some things shaking out.

Tim Wilson
Associate Publisher, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW Magazine
Twitter: timdoubleyou



Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 7:45:05 pm

Tim,

Short of quoting every word above, I want to say that I think your post is about as good an appraisal/summary of the entire present situation as I've seen anywhere.

You elegantly bring to light the fact that the reactions to FCPX are not just limited to users, but to the entire NLE marketplace, and not only to manufacturers of the NLE apps, but across the entire spectrum of hardware and software as well.

And besides just a simple thanks for mentioning our ProMAX ONE, the context in which you mention it is spot on. ProMAX, like HP, Dell, and others, are taking big chances and very proactively responding to the changing needs of end users, because Apple so "violently" thrust change upon the industry, forcing almost every player to reconsider the very core foundations of their business and infrastructure.

Introducing FCPX was not in itself "violent," but in concert with the simultaneous EOL of FCS3, and the potential EOL of the MacPro line of workstations, that constitutes extreme or violent change, at least in my opinion. And, I see this as the primary reason we're all still here today, continuing the debate nearly a year later, and with no clear end in sight for most.

David Roth Weiss
ProMax Systems
Burbank
DRW@ProMax.com
http://www.ProMax.com
Sales | Integration | Support


David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 8:06:07 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Introducing FCPX was not in itself "violent," but in concert with the simultaneous EOL of FCS3, and the potential EOL of the MacPro line of workstations, that constitutes extreme or violent change"

You say you want a revolution? Well, there you go.

Of course this time, it's like Robespierre cut off HIS OWN HEAD.

As much as I respect you for completely agreeing with me -LOL - I continue to maintain that Apple did the roll-out EXACTLY right.

I'm actually writing something about this that I might have ready in the beginning of the week, looking at "revolution" in the context of what we saw -- and not -- at NAB2012. But as much as we look for revolutions, not all of them are good for everybody. (See: Robespierre, both before and after his head rolled.)

I don't think that Apple completely took itself out for the reasons I mention in my previous post, but -- METAPHOR ALERT! ANALOGY! ANALOGY! -- they certainly burned out their own underbrush in a way that's going to make the entire ecosystem thrive like it hasn't in years. Maybe ever.

I wasn't entirely kidding about the -- ANALOGY! LIBERAL ARTS NERD DIGRESSION!! INCOMING!! -- French Revolution parallel. There were actually a handful of them, even before you get to a couple more in the Napoleonic era, but really, you could argue that the whole of modern history flows out of 1789-99...and I do....and I think that it's not the BEGINNING of FCP that changed everything -- I actually don't think it changed ANYTHING.

This, though, this really changes things.

Although we'll know more in 213 years, won't we?

Tim Wilson
Associate Publisher, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW Magazine
Twitter: timdoubleyou



Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 8:59:31 pm

[Tim Wilson] "I continue to maintain that Apple did the roll-out EXACTLY right. "

I'm not disagreeing Tim, at least not entirely, I just want to know, "EXACTLY right" for whom??? That's a BIG statement that you've been making for a while here, and I think it bears at least some detail or explanation.

For example, if a huge asteroid did in fact strike Earth millions of years ago, as the story goes, the violent cataclysm that ensued had untold negative consequences for many of Earth's inhabitants, but it ultimately did benefit many others. So, to say it was "EXACTLY right" would apply to some, but not all. Clearly, it does not seem to have been EXACTLY right for most of the dinosaurs, but it was just right for many other species. :)

And BTW, though I've clearly created the perfect opening for some wise-ass Cows here to compare non-FCPX believers to the dinos, I don't think it would be wise for most here who aspire to work in the big show, as there are still plenty of dinosaurs running things who have not gone extinct just yet. Anybody want to call Walter Murch a dinosaur? Want to do it to his face? :)

David Roth Weiss
ProMax Systems
Burbank
DRW@ProMax.com

Sales | Integration | Support

David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 9:16:54 pm

I think most of this comes down to the simple differentiation - Is yours a dedicated editing/finishing company or a creative firm that has edit suites.

Mine is the latter, and as the creative director that moves between TV spots, narrative and doc work, I'm not interested in multiple tools. I just need the platform I can continue to build our creative around as we did with FCP for 10 years and Media100 before that.

As I meet and talk with other pros outside the editing metros it seems that I'm hardly unique as a writer director who also knows how to design and finish film and audio. We have enough tools that we need to maintain our skills with already. This demographic is definitely interested in one platform going forward...it is a crossroads thing for a lot of us.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 10:09:02 pm

[Jim Giberti] "We have enough tools that we need to maintain our skills with already. This demographic is definitely interested in one platform going forward"

My blurbing here -
I'm generally in the broader creative/not just editing thing - in a lowly fashion - on the one solution thing say: in my day, I tend to push out a ton of after effects finishing stuff, or pure AE generated stuff with the edit I put together, and might occasionally interact with an art director, who would say take the rough guesses for type time and placement I've plopped in FCP and hand back storyboards of brand correct stills of type placement from PS for me to master the FCP output in AE...

so rather lengthy spiel that but -

my thing is: I basically agree that, having drifted out of telly into any old thing, this kind of broader creative interflow is, I think, likely to be rather big going forward: am I mad in thinking that, for a large sector, if PPro proves an easy stable swallow, a lot of us are quite likely to find ourselves walking into Adobe Premiere town?

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 11:17:38 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "my thing is: I basically agree that, having drifted out of telly into any old thing, this kind of broader creative interflow is, I think, likely to be rather big going forward: am I mad in thinking that, for a large sector, if PPro proves an easy stable swallow, a lot of us are quite likely to find ourselves walking into Adobe Premiere town?"

When the dust settles and we look back in retrospect, I think we'll see that Apple did (inadvertently) a really good thing for this part of creative world.

They gave "David" a chance to get a slingshot and rock. Whether Apple responds/recalibrates in a way that makes FCP the real deal or Adobe comes to the rescue of the professional community, Apple has set up some genuinely high drama in a usually stable, geeky corner of the world.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 12:11:07 am

[Jim Giberti] "When the dust settles and we look back in retrospect, I think we'll see that Apple did (inadvertently) a really good thing for this part of creative world.

They gave "David" a chance to get a slingshot and rock. Whether Apple responds/recalibrates in a way that makes FCP the real deal or Adobe comes to the rescue of the professional community, Apple has set up some genuinely high drama in a usually stable, geeky corner of the world."


yes. this rather.

I've never felt like more of a consumer as an editor - as you say - whatever way one cuts it, Apple have ended up unleashing direct consumer market forces across professional media editing to an unheard of degree.

And then strike out their own turf with X.

I refuse however, to say that they could be playing 3D chess.







http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 12:58:44 pm

[Mark Raudonis] " It's NOT personal. It's business."

It's business for me to.

The odds seemed stacked a year ago and they seem even more stacked now.

Apple can afford to give edit software away for free. That's tough to compete with if you can't do the same.

It would be like AT&T saying that they are going to start editing for people for 20 bucks.

They would still do their phone crap, but just jump in our mix also. That would be bad for me.

It seems like AVID needs to blow the doors off fc to stay, and I don't see them doing that.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 4:22:17 pm

Personally, I think building a facility around Avid products to be a bit risky at this point. I just don't see them making any moves that will pull them back from their decline. Of course NLE software is cheap and that they are no longer proprietary in much of their lower cost hardware means a future switch wouldn't be too difficult or expensive.

I'd be concerned about their more expensive hardware though. Ironically that's most important to their revenue and profits. One of three things, I suspect, will have to happen, they either change their business model, they're sold, they fold. Folding isn't immediate because their debt situation isn't bad. The question is what is dropped given the first two possibilities. That question, IMHO, should gnaw at the decision makers as much as any Apple makes. To me the key difference is, I suspect, It would be much easier to move from Apple (and some have done that) than to move from Avid if one is invested in their more expensive hardware.



Return to posts index

Mark Raudonis
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 5:08:28 pm

[Craig Seeman] "It would be much easier to move from Apple (and some have done that) than to move from Avid if one is invested in their more expensive hardware."


I don't understand this comment. If, as everyone is saying, the Apple route is cheaper, then how/why would it be harder to move. You're not making sense. An ISIS can support an FCP workflow quite easily. I've done it.

In a software only world, the hardware drops out of the equation. There will always be faster, better, cheaper drives. Did you walk the isles of NAB? You can't go ten feet without someone pitching a cheaperNAS/SAN.

Mark



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 5:49:41 pm

[Mark Raudonis] "An ISIS can support an FCP workflow quite easily. I've done it."

But what happens if Avid themselves drop support?
Same goes for Unity.

How proprietary are the components? That's my basic concern. Avid has a history of proprietary hooks. That's no longer the case with their software but it's been a long time since I had a look at Unity.



Return to posts index

Mark Raudonis
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 6:06:52 pm

Craig,

I know you know better than that.

An ISIS is a big bit bucket. If Avid went away tomorrow, I'd still have a big bit bucket to play with.

There are plenty of parts available in the supply chain to keep me up and running until the next "new thing" comes along.

I'm NOT worried. Why are you trying so hard to spread FUD?

Mark



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 6:56:55 pm

So if Avid discontinued its front end for Isis it would still have the same ROI value to you?
I was a big fan of Unity at one point, trying to push the company I worked for to buy one . . . but there was a lot less competition in that market 10 years ago.

This is the hypothetical:
If I bought a Media Composer in 2000 and Avid abandoned it, I'd still have a perfectly functional Mac, The proprietary cards and the software through were a large part of the cost and value. I certainly would have been able to install FCP but there'd be a lot of lost ROI.

I can add Avid Shuttle hard drive systems into the equation as well. That was just a bit bucket. It was a much more expensive bit bucket though.

My business question is, if Avid abandoned their Unity/Isis integration software etc, would there be loss on ROI. It's still a bit bucket but Avid MC circa 2000 was still a Mac. That wasn't its primary cost or value though.

I'm honestly not sure how closely the feature, benefit, value is tied to anything Avid proprietary involved if such proprietary function were lost. Maybe very little or none . . . but I'm not sure, not having investigated or setup such a system lately. Additionally if Avid doesn't add much proprietary value then why go with that as a business decision. I'm wondering because I do think there are business that use Media Composer and Symphony and aren't purchasing Unity/Isis because they are finding value elsewhere. I think this may be part of Avid's financial problems.

Basically it would seem to me that many people using MC and those now crossgrading to Symphony are choosing other mass storage management solutions. Assuming that's true (yes just an assumption), why aren't they seeing the added benefit in Unity/Isis?



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 6:12:05 pm

I'd like to see Avid leverage their 'big iron' storage towards cloud computing. Their Edit Anything, Anywhere demo from a couple of years ago showed they were already thinking about cloud editing and I have to wonder if their iPad app is a test run for working out the kinks of a mobile editing GUI.

Of course the big issue with having an ISIS in the cloud is loading all the media. For larger installations, like Mark's, the ISIS could be onsite (like it is now) but for smaller shops maybe they rent space in the cloud from Avid and upload everything using an upload accelerator. Avid would either need to make its own data centers for this or lease them from someone else.


Some have mentioned maybe Blackmagic would buy Avid, but I don't see that as much of an improvement. If BM bought Avid would Avid then only work w/BM cards? Isn't that basically the same path that many say is dooming Avid now? BM, like Avid, is at it's heart a video hardware company at a time when the largest sectors of growth don't necessarily require video I/O hardware.


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 11:46:19 am

Check their NAB demo. They demo'd how their ISIS systems can do cloud editing with their "Interplay Shere" product.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 12:44:02 pm

[Daniel Frome] "Check their NAB demo. They demo'd how their ISIS systems can do cloud editing with their "Interplay Shere" product."

Thanks. That's an example that shows Isis is more than a bit bucket. It also shows what one can lose if Avid folds or is sold or makes a major structural change for financial reasons that impact certain products.



Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 12:52:55 pm

Ugh, thanks. So if Avid actually folding? Why are you insinuating this?


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 1:12:03 pm

[Daniel Frome] "Ugh, thanks. So if Avid actually folding? Why are you insinuating this?"

I don't know what's happening with Avid beyond that their financials continue on a downward spiral even after the brief uptick. They're about debt free which means they're probably much more likely to be sold than fold. A debt free company can be a very good value.

The issue is that whether it's internal reorganization or sale, someone(s) are going to be making decisions about their product lines and business model and someone users might get hurt. Some products consolidated, some dropped. I'm not sure which and what but that means there's some risk for people buying Avid products.

The one sure thing (IMHO) is that things will not keep going as they are. Given the lack of debt they can go on for a while but to stay debt free may mean more staff downsizing and that creates another set of problems depending on which departments.



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 12:58:00 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Some have mentioned maybe Blackmagic would buy Avid, but I don't see that as much of an improvement. If BM bought Avid would Avid then only work w/BM cards? Isn't that basically the same path that many say is dooming Avid now?"

But BM apparently has a functioning business model. Is DaVinci sales hurting or helping BM's hardware sales? I think BMs hardware pricing and direction lend themselves to wide use. That's not the case with Avid. When Avid limited hardware use with MC/Symphony the choices were expensive. Some thought overpriced for the features. I don't think DaVinci users feel that way about BM's Video I/O. I don't think ATEM users feel that way about their hardware switchers. On the other hand many ProTools users were livid at the cost of the hardware upgrade.

Actually I think BM and Avid is a very good comparison between a viable hardware business model and one that isn't in the long run. Avid also is very upmarket in its hardware whereas BM tries to be broadmarket (affordable).

BM is willing to be daring by entering new markets very aggressively. They did it with DaVinci. They're doing it with their Digital Cinema Camera. Avid? Well they did come out with a neat iPad Video Editor. I'm not sure how the revenue for that works for a hardware company or the upsale from that to Symphony with Isis. Meanwhile BM has a free lite (and really not all that lite) version of DaVinci Resolve and they give away the full version with the camera. BM's moves probably do a better job of the upsale both in software and hardware. Even their camera is geared to sell their color grading workflow given the choice of codec they used.



Return to posts index

John Christie
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 6:28:14 pm

Thanks for the follow up Mark.

Our shop of 16 edit suites will switch from FCP to Avid in the not to distant future. We work with a lot of freelancers who speak both FCP and Avid. None of them show an interest in learning X for long format editing.

Symphony for $999 gives us an amazing opportunity to upgrade all our suites.

We'll keep our eyes on Premiere Pro as we continue to use Adobe CS for After Effects and Photoshop.

I had a grudge with Apple last year when all this started to unravel. But time heals all wounds and as Mark says - It's not personal, It's business


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 9:56:47 pm

One year later it seems clear to me that FCPX is further behind the competition. The past 9 months has seen a lot of improvements but mostly in the area of re establishing functionality that was already there.

The Apple 52% market share stats mean very little in terms of what my sector of the industry is actually doing. If they were true then being at the end of the post pipeline, I would see the flow on effect. Sure I am in a small isolated market, but it used to be 80% FCP, 15% AVID (the rest Adobe) and at the moment it is zero FCPX. You can't have 52% market share and fail to make an impression on my business but so far it is zero, with no-one even asking if I can handle FCPX. But I am a realist and so knowing that FCPX XML is being supported by others is comforting.

This NAB was really about people who could afford to wait being rewarded with Smoke, AVID and CS6 offering more than credible alternatives. I waited and nursed my facility with FCP7 and da Vinci plus Automatic Duck's free tools. The landscape to me is about to change as newer cameras and codecs drive people off FCP7 where they have camped nervously for the past year. I expect the % in one year to be 50% FCP7, 45% AVID/CS6 and 5% others including FCPX. Most who are switching are going to get both AVID & CS6 so I lump them together. I think Walter Soyka is right that people are now looking at owning more than one edit system. That is exactly the feedback that I am getting.

So is FCPX a player? Of course it is but it will be a long slow road back for Apple, partially because of the comparative facility of the software but mostly because of the trust broken. I am most inclined to Smoke for finishing. My clients seem most inclined to a mix of CS6 and AVID (or both) as they slowly change. Also many tell me that they will switch hardware/OS to WIN when it is time to upgrade boxes. I am building a WIN screamer for da Vinci but hope my late 2009 MacPro will work well with Smoke.

I think now that the dust of NAB is settling the big change away from Apple is going to happen. So despite the moves that Apple has made to improve FCPX for the broadcast market, one year later I find them further behind the competition. Ironically I also expect to buy FCPX in the next year as support for editors who will start using it. It will be more like having a plugin or ancillary software on the system to handle the odd client who will bring in a FCPX job and need me to manage the project and output to Smoke/ da Vinci.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 10:19:27 pm

[Michael Gissing] "Ironically I also expect to buy FCPX in the next year as support for editors who will start using it. It will be more like having a plugin or ancillary software on the system to handle the odd client who will bring in a FCPX job and need me to manage the project and output to Smoke/ da Vinci."

I think the plug-in analogy is exactly right. FCPX is cheap and a good thing to keep in the tool box for the things it does well. But as a replacement for a 10-year old day to day editorial workflow based on FCP legacy, Premiere Pro CS6 looks like it makes much more sense.

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


Return to posts index

Jules bowman
Re: One year later...
on Apr 20, 2012 at 10:38:42 pm

The only reason apple will 'care' about the top end pros is because of association. I bought a mac and FCP when I started because the top end pros were using it and I could afford it. I knew of avid from my time in TV but FCS offered too much at a good price and had been pre validated.

And not just by the Leverage team.

Apple care about money. If they cared about The industry they would form a little ProApps offshoot that could even run at break even and could have delivered FCS and Pro Macs forever. Even at a small loss it would have been sensible and its not like they couldnt hire in more coders to do it: there aren't a finite amount of them.

Apple is where it is because of the iDevice purple patch they hit, but part of that is the association with the creative sector. I would say a high percentage of people associate Apple with creative professionals.

They have started damaging that association now. it will falter further as time passes. apple will be superseded by others in people's perceptions of who are associated with professional creatives. and then Apple just won't be as cool.

so sure, they want the world to believe they care about the professional creatives. They want the world to associate them with the professional creatives. And yep, some professional creatives will love their iPhones and iPads. But believing they care about the professional market is folly my dear little blinded chums. They'll keep pretending they do because they want that association. And you'll keep trotting out specs and possibilities and theories and beliefs of what and where and how glorious it will all be, but the cold hard truth is they care about the middle classes disposable income. Stephen Fry espousing the aesthetic beauty of the iPhone 4 is far more knicker wetting to them than Walter Murch going 'meh, it's not as shit as it was'.


Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 11:54:05 am

Always interesting to hear the thoughts of someone in your shoes.


Return to posts index

Jules bowman
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 12:42:29 pm

Not quite sure how to interpret that. What shoes do you see me as wearing?


Return to posts index


Jules bowman
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 12:54:31 pm

Nope, still have no idea what you are trying to communicate. Guess i'll have to sit this one out.


Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 12:55:45 pm

haha, it's an internet meme - and I did a poor job at conveying it. Rest assured it's meant to be a subtle cheer-on.


Return to posts index

Jules bowman
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 12:58:35 pm

then many thanks, but I really didn't get it (still don't sorry). though the day I get everything.... well, that's never going to happen now is it :) But I did get Black Sabbath's Paranoid LP on vinyl through the post today so I'm happy in my little fifedom.

Thanks for trying to elaborate though.


Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 1:07:27 pm

The meme is based on an old advertising campaign, where the man pictured usually gives quirky but correct advice, in some kind of comical way. The advise is usually geared towards younger generations, basically trying to show a wiser, more successful man teaching his underlings.

Anyway, you can probably see why I thought of this scenario when you likened the editor-FCPX relationship to a game. Kind of true.


Return to posts index

Jules bowman
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 1:16:47 pm

ah, well that's kind of flattering, though this may have been a more pertinent image to use for me:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44413000/jpg/_44413846_garnett1_203bb...


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 2:26:15 pm

Mosquitos refuse to bite him, purely out of respect:







Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: One year later...
on Apr 21, 2012 at 9:36:18 pm

Ironically (perhaps?), that campaign, or at least part of it, was produced by FCPX adopter @radical.media.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

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