FORUMS: list search recent posts

A question of common approach.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Aindreas Gallagher
A question of common approach.
on May 29, 2012 at 10:29:30 pm

rants and all aside -

say our perception, individually, of editing, is completely personal, because, well, it super, super is.
But - we tend to arrive at commonly held processes to solution.
We tend to arrive independently at common solutions.

Isn't this shared author experience? in some part, due to to utterly essential commonly held tool usage?

how can there be no onus on the makers of editing software to respect a notion as basic as this?

And in case there is confusion, I'm looking to secondary storylines, connected clips, and the rest of the cotton candy Apple circus.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 29, 2012 at 10:58:55 pm

Or perhaps it's good sometimes when Companies challenge convention, even when you don't agree with them?

Good to see you back BTW!

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 12:23:48 am

In the old linear days of cutting film with Moviola's and flatbeds you learned method that worked on whatever brand of flatbed you were on. You might even keep your own cutter and grease pencils. Similar with linear off-line tape editing - either you were on a little RM440 or in a big linear bay which required huge money to set up and run.

I think with software NLE's there's always going to be a learning curve switching systems. Avid holds so many patents as do others and you can't just copy them dead on. Apple had done a real good job of creating a truly pro NLE that could go head to head with Avid in legacy FCP. Maybe with Premiere, Edius and others nipping at their heals, they decided to make a bold move and be the NLE of the future - huge move, costly mistake in ways, but we won't know if they were right for a long time. I don't think they're gonna lose the race in the long run, they have far deeper pockets than Avid or Adobe and can literally wait until the current crop of kids using FCPX as second nature, enters the work place and eventually replaces us all.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 12:29:17 am

[Lance Bachelder] " I don't think they're gonna lose the race in the long run, they have far deeper pockets than Avid or Adobe and can literally wait until the current crop of kids using FCPX as second nature, enters the work place and eventually replaces us all."

Interesting that you say that. I've posted elsewhere that Apple is going to win in the attrition war. Over time I think it will be the new facilities considering it, that will drive growth and acceptance.



Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 12:33:44 am

I don't think that that is at all outside them realm of possibility. It all depends on how committed Apple is to the product. If they stay with it it could become a standard. But given their track record they could just as easily kill it and pretend it never existed.

Tim


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 12:43:08 am

[TImothy Auld] "But given their track record they could just as easily kill it and pretend it never existed."

After 12 years or so like FCP legacy. They'll have something else by then. After all Ubillos said "for the next 10 years."



Return to posts index


TImothy Auld
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 12:45:45 am

Or they could do it tomorrow.

Tim


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 1:02:12 am

[TImothy Auld] "Or they could do it tomorrow."

Not likely from any reasonable business perspective. Not with a program that people keep buying (whether or not they're actually using it). "The Cylons have a plan"



Return to posts index

tony west
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 12:40:40 am

[Lance Bachelder] "I don't think they're gonna lose the race in the long run, they have far deeper pockets than Avid or Adobe and can literally wait until the current crop of kids using FCPX as second nature, enters the work place and eventually replaces us all.
"



Yes, Lance.

That's why I decided to at least learn it. I can't bet against a company with that much money.


Return to posts index


Liam Hall
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 8:41:02 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "In the old linear days of cutting film with Moviola's and flatbeds"

Editing film on a Moviola, Steenbeck, Kem or whatever was a NON-linear process.

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 9:38:57 pm

You're right - I remember crawling on the floor to find the correct two frames I needed to put back in a cut then re-syncing the dialog and fx or music 'cause you couldn't have much sound running on a six-plate flatbed but I loved cutting film...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 29, 2012 at 11:02:56 pm

Certainly commonality of language binds people and subjects together. I will never forget sitting down at at Sony 2000 edit controller for the first time, having worked extensively with GVG and CMX controllers. Much to my surprise and confusion Sony had come up with entirely new terminology to represent conventions that had existed for decades (thankfully my mind has blocked out the details.) Why? I don't know. I do know I did not encounter many other Sony 2000s after that. Realizing full well that I may have to work with FCP X one day I am still totally agog at what Apple did here. Primary storyline, secondary storyline, roles? Just the sound of the names is amateurish at best. And...it may be powerful, it may be versatile, it may have great databasing capabilities...but - after a year - it still ain't stable. How many of us can afford that?

Tim


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 29, 2012 at 11:06:56 pm

10.04 is stable!

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 29, 2012 at 11:07:28 pm

Not from what I am hearing from people.

Tim


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 29, 2012 at 11:14:45 pm

So as not to sidetrack Aindreas's original thread I might move this question to a new one.

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index


TImothy Auld
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 29, 2012 at 11:23:18 pm

Excellent idea. I have colleagues who love the idea and potential of FCP X but have always had stability issues. And in my admittedly limited experience I have had stability issues, But I also know from reading this forum that there are people who are not experiencing this. So I'm looking forward to the responses.

Tim


Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 29, 2012 at 11:50:42 pm

Getting back to the original topic... Yes, I do think commonly held processes need to be respected.

If a company thinks they have a better approach that will be helpful to learn, that's great, but they shouldn't force it on people overnight like Apple did with FCPX. As I mentioned in another thread, this whole fiasco could have been avoided it Apple had taken the same approach with X that they used for DVD Studio Pro, and kept things the way they were but also introduce a "magnetic timeline mode". I think acceptance of X would have been much greater if they had done this.

It's been said on here that the magnetic timeline is very powerful and much better, you just have to get used to it- and that may take a while. The problem, though, is there are other very capable NLEs that FCP7 users can switch to very easily and use very effectively, without having to spend time re-learning everything they've ever known about how an NLE works.

What Apple should have done, at the very least, is use the DVDSP approach with this release and then make it known that the next major release of FCPX would not include the track mode. This would have given editors time to slowly adjust, and it would have given Apple time to build a more capable, better organized trackless timeline.

______________________________________________
"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

Craig Seeman
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 12:56:17 am

[Greg Andonian] "they shouldn't force it on people overnight like Apple did with FCPX"

No one was forced. Avid and Adobe were available.

[Greg Andonian] "his whole fiasco could have been avoided it Apple had taken the same approach with X that they used for DVD Studio Pro, and kept things the way they were but also introduce a "magnetic timeline mode""

I don't think that would have been technically easy to execute. They weren't building on old technology. They didn't want to build on the old GUI.

[Greg Andonian] "is there are other very capable NLEs that FCP7 users can switch to very easily and use very effectively, without having to spend time re-learning everything they've ever known about how an NLE works."

Yes for me. I spend 12 years on Avid before spending 10 years on FCP. I probably could have moved back to Avid more easily than move to FCPX. I chose the latter though.

[Greg Andonian] "What Apple should have done, at the very least, is use the DVDSP approach with this release and then make it known that the next major release of FCPX would not include the track mode."

Not technically viable. They could have had an 18 month (give or take) crossover to the new system as they did when they moved from OS9 to OSX. For reasons we don't know, they chose not to have both NLEs co-exist for a time.



Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 12:23:38 am

It may be that Avid set the conventions in the NLE world and all else followed from it (in most cases). Those NLEs that worked differently never grew beyond niche or failed.

Apple's FCPX may be the first from a company that has the wherewithal to offer an alternative. Note that I say "alternative." This does not mean they will change convention. They may allow for multiple conventions to coexist though.

Given my own 20 plus years sentiment towards tracks, I'm glad I finally have an NLE that's moving the direction I'd prefer.

The short version, I've always felt that tracks serving two conflicting purposes of compositing and organizing was a kludge. That FCPX allows for compositing and layering with connected clips and secondary storylines and roles for organizing fist better with my approach. It's not that both features work completely the way I want yet but that, for me, it's heading in the right direction.

I've also been of the mind to categorize clips in multiple places but that was awkward in bin based systems for me. That a shot can be: two shot, exterior, night, NYC, John, Jane at the same time so for any given situation it's where I'd naturally think of it for any given situation. I like keyword and smart collections much better than bins.

I've always wanted to move clips and their connected clips without having to lasso and do that move without having to clear space and/or trim first. I'd rather move first and then move or trim things after that.

I don't know how many others have always wanted to work like that, but I have ever since my first year on Avid (1989ish). I'm happy I have hopes for an NLE that fits the conventions I've wished for.



Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 1:11:09 am

It's just annoying because it has the same name. I think. Every time I've made a major shift in NLE's it's been a huge change. Except from Avid to FCP ( and some personal use of EditDV) which was basically the result of the creators of Premiere bowing to Avid and accepting that was the standard of the time. But before Avid I started on the VideoCube/TurboCube and then a huge conceptual shift to Media100. Both were completely different and didn't have the source record metaphor. The VideoCube didn't even show video on the computer. It was really a switcher controlled by a computer. When I switched to Media100 it felt archaic by comparison. Everything had to be rendered. The jump to Avid was even more bizarre. I had never had to track patch before. Perhaps because my previous NLEs only had the equivalent of 1 Avid track. The switch to FCP was more of a "where is that function in here" kinda change. It was an Avid clone compared to the differences in the other Apps.

So I guess it was time. Things were getting stale. Still not happy about the way it was handled. But FCP X is just another NLE with a different way of doing things. Except for that name. It doesn't do everything, but I'm finding that much is what it can do, it does better.


Return to posts index

Glen Hurd
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 2:25:51 am

A common approach? You mean there are standards? What standards? You mean people have been doing this before? Were they smart? Does it matter? This is art, after all. I should be able to put up a black screen with a blinking green cursor in one corner, add a voice-over about the apocalypse, and get instant fame, shouldn't I?
(I just came up with that idea, by the way - what's your "approach?")

Celebrate the democratization of one of the most expensive methods of self-expression, and stop whining over your loss of importance in the world. Sure, once you were a virtuoso violinist, celebrated by millionaires and billionaires for your artful representation of their messages to the world. But now . . . well, now you've been joined by 1 billion other editors, filling the earth with their own messages to the world.

"Down with the 1%!"
"Up with the 1%!"
"Here's how to join the 1%!"
"Why you should love the 33-66%!"

It's all very meaningful and exciting.

My son watches hours of video-game replays with voice-over - everyday. DayZ, COD, Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress, MineCraft, etc. That's as entertaining to him as Gilligan's Island was for me when I was 10. $100,000's spent advertising with content that takes less time to assemble than it does to play the game.

It's a new world, Aindreas. They don't need you any more. No need for writers - we can all text. No need for cameramen - everyone's got an iPhone. No need for directors - photographers can yell "action." Actors don't need to act - with enough takes we just get lucky. Lights are increasingly unnecessary, and editing is really a simple process of just killing the boring stuff. I mean, if the footage beats another lolcat video, yu're goldn dewd.
Just . . . whatever you do, don't lose sync. 'Cause that's not professional.

Tape is dead. TV is dead. Hollywood is almost dead. Facebook and the MacPro could be dead. If you feel like your "common approach" is dead . . . well, you're catching on.

I know you suffer from some psychological trauma at being reduced to just another hand-in-the-air clamoring for attention. Grow up, Aindreas. It's a new world, and no one is listening. So just assemble clips as quick as you can, hit the submit button, and thank God that Apple had the forsight to see all this and make it easier for you to get out the door. What used to take days, can now be completed in 31 minutes. Frankly, if you do take longer, no one's going to see the difference anyway. You don't think they're watching that closely, do you? Sorry to burst your bubble, but I can't bear to see you struggling over this any longer. It's like you expect your passion for editing to be respected and understood or something? Just let it go, Aindreas, . . . let it go.

If you want to take up a meaningful art, try the kazoo, in a small white room, with a single window looking out over the grounds. It'll be a step up.
I'll be in the next room over, trying my hand at satire.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 8:29:34 am

[Glen Hurd] "If you want to take up a meaningful art, try the kazoo, in a small white room, with a single window looking out over the grounds. It'll be a step up.
I'll be in the next room over, trying my hand at satire.
"


That post gets a "like" from me - I forgot we could do "likes" on here

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 11:53:28 am

outstanding, simply.. outstanding.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 2:09:07 pm

[Glen Hurd] "trying my hand at satire."

I'd say you're doing more than trying. Great post.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 5:49:09 am

Are you a clown?


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 11:52:38 am

well sure, probably am, are you an aubergine?

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: A question of common approach.
on May 30, 2012 at 12:31:16 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "how can there be no onus on the makers of editing software to respect a notion as basic as this?"

I don't know if we can tell them how to run their business other than to not buy their product.

I think they owe it to themselves as a company to separate themselves from the competition and try to be profitable.

I think the only thing a company owes to anybody else is to try to be a good contributor to society while doing it.


Return to posts index

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