FORUMS: list search recent posts

Patent Thing meets FCP-X.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bill Davis
Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 6:35:35 am

All afternoon I've been thinking if Apple might have realized that in the new era, constant IP defense would be such a top-line concern for all large companies.

Makes the "gut and rebuild" strategy of FCP-X look smarter and smarter.

It's also likely why the Export functions in X are so Apple-centric. Most of what you can output is Apple owned or consortium licensed (H-264) tech.

If you want to cross convert from that - you have to let someone else pay for and manage the software licenses.

Appears to me that Apple realized that with so much success in the consumer products - they could concentrate on playing the longer game rather than the shorter one for quite some time now.

FWIW.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 7:36:10 am

[Bill Davis] "All afternoon I've been thinking if Apple might have realized that in the new era, constant IP defense would be such a top-line concern for all large companies.

Makes the "gut and rebuild" strategy of FCP-X look smarter and smarter."


I said this was the likely reason in June 2011 or thereabouts. I quoted from Wikipedia
Macromedia could not release the product without causing its partner Truevision some issues with Microsoft, as KeyGrip was, in part, based on technology from Microsoft licensed to Truevision and then in turn to Macromedia. The terms of the IP licensing deal stated that it was not to be used in conjunction with QuickTime. Thus, Macromedia was forced to keep the product off the market until a solution could be found.
...
The Mac version was working with a Truevision RTX dual stream real time card with limited real time effects. When no purchaser could be found, Apple purchased the team as a defensive move. When Apple could not find a buyer in turn, it continued development work, focusing on adding FireWire/DV support and at NAB 1999 Apple introduced Final Cut Pro.

My guess is the IP issues resurfaced and probably had to be renegotiated at a much higher price and that's why FCP7 was pulled so suddenly. I'd also guess, given Apple's long term thinking (as you note), at some point they decided to kill everything Pro App related that was purchased out of house. In any case I think behind the scenes IP issues lead them to decide to build the whole thing from scratch in house and, as we see from the recent FCPX related filings, guard every single thing about it.

Just a tangential guess but Logic, as the lone surviving out of house tool, might be taking as long as it is because it's getting a ground up internal rewrite as well.



Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 11:01:14 am

Warning.
Endogamy leads to inbreeding, which results in:
- Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
- Increased genetic disorders
- Fluctuating facial asymmetry
- Lower birth rate
- Higher infant mortality
- Slower growth rate
- Smaller adult size
- Loss of immune system function
See Wikipedia or ask your veterinary.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 1:53:14 pm

[Craig Seeman] "My guess is the IP issues resurfaced and probably had to be renegotiated at a much higher price and that's why FCP7 was pulled so suddenly."

Yes Craig, you've said this many times and it would make sense if you could answer the follow up question that has been asked just as many times of how was it then possible for Apple to reverse itself a month later and continue to sell FCP7, even if only thru more limited channels. If they couldn't sell FCP7 in June because of licensing problems then how were they able to sell it in August, September, October ... ?

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: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 3:54:25 pm

[Herb Sevush] " how was it then possible for Apple to reverse itself a month later and continue to sell FCP7"

Apple's initial response was that they would investigate continued sales. I don't doubt their lawyers found some method that may have reduced cost given some kind of limits (not marketed for sale by them, only sold on request, low threshold). All speculative. You'll have to ask Apple and of course they're not going to say. That is was "a month" later may mean it was not a simple or obvious process such as "it's ours and we can sell it again if we want" because that does not seem to be what happened.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 5:26:26 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Apple's initial response was that they would investigate continued sales."

When exactly did they say that? I don't recall hearing anything from then until sales were suddenly, and quite silently, resumed.

Craig, feel free to speculate as much as you want. You have to stretch yourself into knots trying to explain all the inconsistencies for the idea that everything can be explained by Apple's licensing agreements running out.

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: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 6:07:01 pm

[Herb Sevush] "When exactly did they say that?"

I can't recall where I read it but it was in one of the "noteworthy" blogs when they where asked that question. Assuming the blog accounts are true, they did say something to that effect.



Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 8:17:49 pm

usually when you buy a company, you also get all pending and granted IP belonging to that company. Unless those applications were licensing IP from other companies at the time, then it would have been negotiated at the time. I don't believe that Apple dropped FCP7 development because of IP issues. It's probably a combination of old code, starting from scratch anyway, and new business models that can better take advantage of the Apple store and in-app purchases allowing Apple to better manage their 30% of everything they don't develop themselves.

Michael


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 1:57:05 pm

[Bill Davis] "All afternoon I've been thinking if Apple might have realized that in the new era, constant IP defense would be such a top-line concern for all large companies. "

Does this mean you are reversing yourself and acknowledging that these broad, non-specific software patents are counter productive for business?

Does this also define X as a product not made not for the betterment of the art of editing but merely to avoid the kind of patent wars that Apple is such a proponent of?

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: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 3:55:34 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Does this also define X as a product not made not for the betterment of the art of editing but merely to avoid the kind of patent wars that Apple is such a proponent of?"

Hmm, like the iPhone and iPad?
How about they want to protect original creation.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 5:31:45 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Hmm, like the iPhone and iPad?
How about they want to protect original creation."


The had neither a previous phone nor tablet when they released the iphone and ipad, so no the X situation is not very comparable to that.

Yes Apple, like anyone else, wishes to protect original creation while also stealing as much as they can from everyone else and then stifling all competition. I don't blame Apple for their behavior, they are just like every other large company beholding to stock owners; I blame the US Patent office.

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: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 7:26:21 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The had neither a previous phone nor tablet when they released the iphone and ipad, so no the X situation is not very comparable to that. "

And they had no in house NLE as FCP legacy and most of the added ProApps also came from out of house. This is a "course correction" as it where as Apple probably wants complete in house control of all IP.

[Herb Sevush] "I blame the US Patent office."
This does open into a broader issue (at least to me). There's major issues with copyright and derivative work as well.



Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 9:31:10 pm

[Craig Seeman] "And they had no in house NLE as FCP legacy and most of the added ProApps also came from out of house. "

Craig, they had an in-house NLe. they had it for 10 years. They may not have originated the code, but they updated seriously for years and years. From 2000 to 2010 they marketed the hell out of it, proud as panda's that FCP was used on this film and that film. And now you're re-writing history to claim they had no in house NLE. What kind of Orwellian nonsense is that? This bears NO relationship to the situation with the iphone. None. No matter how you try to sidestep it.

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: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 9:38:44 pm

[Herb Sevush] "They may not have originated the code"

And thus, not created in house and they may not have owned the IP (possibly licensed instead) on every aspect as well.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 4:36:19 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Does this mean you are reversing yourself and acknowledging that these broad, non-specific software patents are counter productive for business?
"


No. Apple is doing precisely what they are asking Samsung to do. Rather than infringe on others work, buckle down and do your OWN damn work. Nothing inconsistent in that at all.



[Herb Sevush] "Does this also define X as a product not made not for the betterment of the art of editing but merely to avoid the kind of patent wars that Apple is such a proponent of?"

Only if your viewpoint is that people can't re-work things and not only make them unique, but make them BETTER suited for the evolution of the industry.

As I've said before, X is not presently the perfect high-end collaborative tool for editing. At the same time, it's an absolutely killer tool for the new era of editing and delivery of shorter form web-centric content and a whole lot more. I'm enjoying delivering broadcast package work out of it in my little pond. It's faster and over time I suspect it's going to come to own the much, much larger pond of general editing, simply because it's so capable. - and by doing so - will have the resources to develop into the next great general purpose editing approach.

It will be the tool, IMO, that folks who come to editing from the net viewpoint rather than from TV stations or Movie viewpoints will increasingly use as their baseline.

The "art of editing" is bigger than movies and TV. Tho I understand that those working in those traditional industries will have a very hard time coming to grips with the fact that those aren't the only industries that deserve being catered to.

FWIW.

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


Return to posts index


Tim Wilson
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 5:00:27 pm

I can't imagine that licensing had anything to do with pulling FCP 7. Apple either had the rights to that stuff or they didn't. Anyone seeking damages for infringing uses would have done so based on ALL the money that Apple had ever made with that technology, going back to the very beginning. These kinds of lawsuits are intentionally blunt instruments.

I've written at extensive length why I think Apple ended FCP 7. They'd been dying to do it for years, which is why it had had ZERO major development since multicam in 2005. ProRes was just a format, and it came 4 years later than the Avid DNxHD it was clearly modeled on. FCP was zombieware, moving just slowly enough to trick you into thinking it was still alive.

More than that, it was borg-ware. Other than Motion, almost the entire suite had been bought from other companies, with -- beyond those three dots to manage the windows, genie effects and splat-H-- very little effort to make it have even the most basic Apple look and feel. Even a single day more after the launch of X would have been continuing the self-defeat that FCP 7 had become for any reason but money -- and as much as thuggish as they're proving to be, they've NEVER done anything JUST for money. Never.

It's all about protecting the Apple Way, and FCP/FCS had very little to do with that. X has EVERYTHING to do with that.

Anyway, I've written enough about this, but I'll maintain this until Apple tells us otherwise: X was always about putting a shovel in the head of the FCP borg zombie, and doing things Apple's wat. THAT was the goal, not money, not licensing, certainly not serving existing customers...which they have likewise never prioritized over Apple's look, feel, etc.

I think that this is also why X is being tied so much more closely to Mac core functions. They ALWAYS want to do this with EVERYTHING, as well they should - and FCS was never going to get them there. Never, which means it HAD to die the second it possibly could. It's survival was a continuing affront to everything that Apple has stood for, and wants to stand for going forward.

It'd be nice to have something else to blame other than Apple being Apple, but this has been their MO since 1984. The longer you've been an Apple customer (since 1979 for me), the more often you've been bit by it.

Tim Wilson
Vice President, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW Magazine
Twitter: timdoubleyou

The typos here are most likely because I'm, a) typing this on my phone; and b) an idiot.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 5:19:40 pm

[Bill Davis] "No. Apple is doing precisely what they are asking Samsung to do. Rather than infringe on others work, buckle down and do your OWN damn work. Nothing inconsistent in that at all."

To throw some more fuel onto the fire, would you care to speculate on what would have happened if Edwin S. Porter patented cross cutting in an action scene. Or Orson Welles patented the dramatic use of deep focus in dramas. Jerry Lewis could have patented the idea of using subjective funny sounds in a comedy. The list could go on and on. We're actually lucky that Moviola or someone else didn't patent the idea of sequencing shots together to form a story.

Apple is poising the town's reservoir while it digs it's own well; it's a strategy that might work for awhile, but it's not something to be proud of.

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: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 6:04:32 pm

. . . and imagine if Ken Burns actually patented his motion control effect (which he didn't originate).



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 6:12:38 pm

[Herb Sevush] "To throw some more fuel onto the fire, would you care to speculate on what would have happened if Edwin S. Porter patented cross cutting in an action scene. Or Orson Welles patented the dramatic use of deep focus in dramas."

To the best of my knowledge, there was ABSOLUTELY nothing stopping them from trying.

The patent office, as it was run in that era would either have granted or disallowed it. And the industry would have moved on. At that time in history - those concepts weren't deemed protectable. Or just never came up for that kind of review.

But we don't live back then anymore. Things have changed. Instead of a few hundred people with access to the means of movie production, we have hundreds of millions.

This is "strict constructionism" writ large. It's the "this is how it is and it is how it must be for all times - even if the things that caused it to be be that way change" thinking. I don't find that to be particularly bright. It's NOT 1957 anymore.

The industry - in fits and starts and with much disruption - is changing as well. The Patent Office will get some stuff right, get some stuff wrong, and muddle through - EXACTLY as every other institution on earth.

Overall, they've participated in helping the US grow strong and compete globally. It's a necessary function if we want national companies who can compete globally.

And I'm sorry, but this entire patent kerfluffle is a GNAT in the face of human ingenuity.

It won't really change anything other than annoying a lot of enterprises by making them all dance the same patent dance, whether they're big or small, weak or powerful.

I still think the central question is one of power imbalance. I can accept that the more successful can wield some power over the less successful. That's an incentive for everyone to focus on success. And I emotionally enjoy having the big guys successfully slapped by the little guys as much as the next onlooker - a necessary step to curb arrogance. But I just can't gin up much "dear me the sky is falling" angst for Apple and Samsung going at it in court. Samsung got slapped this time. Apple will at others.

Fine for me, again cuz it's a fair fight.

Taking software patents off the table doesn't, in my view, make any fight any fairer because it removes a tool that any innovator, large or small, can use (or even try to misuse) to gain an advantage. As long as it's all done in open court - with both you and I getting to weigh in here - I suspect over the long haul the game will function OK.

I know many here see this as a slippery slope argument. I just think all the current players in this are wise enough to bring climbing hammers and ropes to the party.

Period.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 6:51:32 pm

[Bill Davis] "To the best of my knowledge, there was ABSOLUTELY nothing stopping them from trying. "

For whatever reason artistic techniques have never been patented, possibly because artists are not as greedy as corporate execs, possibly because they are accustomed to being protected by copyright as opposed to patent law. All I'm suggesting is that the one more ought resemble the other- that patent law more closely copy copyright law.

In the mid 70's I worked at an animation house in, of all places, Washington DC that had discovered and engineered new ways to use Arial Image photography. The owner and inventor of this device talked a lot about patents, and was considering patenting his device. The issue for him was that a patent described what you were doing in ways that made it easier for competitors to steal your design - either illegally, by copying it exactly, or by giving them enough understanding of your device to allow them to come up with a similar but legally different device. It was often thought wiser, if there wasn't a mass market for the device, to not patent it at all.

Apparently the patent office has come a long way, and yes I still believe that not all growth is good. Sometimes it's a cancer.


[Bill Davis] "It's NOT 1957 anymore."

Yes, that was the year Mickey Mantle hit .365 with 30 home runs, won his second straight MVP award and the Yankees offered him a pay cut. IT's definitely not 1957 anymore.

Here's a list of Hollywood movies released in 1957 (I'm leaving out foreign films like The Seventh Seal and Throne of Blood for brevity's sake.)

* 3:10 to Yuma,
* 12 Angry Men
* An Affair to Remember
* The Bridge on the River Kwai
* Decision at Sundown
* Designing Woman
* Desk Set
* Edge of the City
* The Enemy Below
* A Face in the Crowd
* Fear Strikes Out
* Funny Face
* Gunfight at the O.K. Corral
* Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
* Kiss Them for Me
* Love in the Afternoon
* Man of a Thousand Faces
* Old Yeller
* The Pajama Game
* Pal Joey
* Paths of Glory
* The Sad Sack
* The Spirit of St. Louis
* Sweet Smell of Success
* The Tall T
* The Three Faces of Eve
* The Tin Star
* The Wings of Eagles
* Witness for the Prosecution

Look at that list and then look at a list of this year's movie releases and tell me again why I'm supposed to think that change, while inevitable, is always for the better?

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 10:53:46 pm

[Herb Sevush] "* The Wings of Eagles
* Witness for the Prosecution

Look at that list and then look at a list of this year's movie releases and tell me again why I'm supposed to think that change, while inevitable, is always for the better?
"


Here's why.

Do a search for Top 25 movies of 2012. (half this year)
You'll find more range, more variety, and all the quality.

The issue is that nobody hears of half of them because we're innundated with too much choice. Every week there not 10 or 20 movies released in the modern era, but hundreds.

With 40 restaurants in town, they can mostly be decent. With 400, it's not as easy. The customer pool is diffused, there's more competition for resources and talent, and so there will be more BAD to go along with more GOOD.

The 2011 Rotten Tomatoes top 25 has movies every bit as good as those on your "classic list" and when those who are teenagers today look back at Drive, or the Girl with the Dragon Tatoo, or Super 8, 50 years on - I suspect they will compare quite well to our view of the 1957 fare given the same patina of nostalgia.

FWIW.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 11:45:27 pm

[Bill Davis] "Do a search for Top 25 movies of 2012. (half this year)You'll find more range, more variety, and all the quality."

I did a search and was very underwhelmed, aside from Beasts of the Southern Wild, which is brilliant in any year.

[Bill Davis] "The 2011 Rotten Tomatoes top 25 has movies every bit as good as those on your "classic list" and when those who are teenagers today look back at Drive, or the Girl with the Dragon Tatoo, or Super 8,"

You must be kidding, right? I mean there were a couple of pretty good films last year - The Artist, Moneyball, The Guard, Hugo, Win Win, Drive, Attack the Block - but I doubt anyone is gonna confuse this list with Bridge On The River Kwai, Paths of Glory, Love in the Afternoon and The Sweet Smell of Success.

[Bill Davis] "The issue is that nobody hears of half of them because we're innundated with too much choice. Every week there not 10 or 20 movies released in the modern era, but hundreds. "

In 2010 615 films were released in the US. in 1939 761 films were released. Yes, I see, there are so many films released in the modern era.

[Bill Davis] "With 40 restaurants in town, they can mostly be decent. With 400, it's not as easy. The customer pool is diffused, there's more competition for resources and talent, and so there will be more BAD to go along with more GOOD."

The ratio of good to bad is not dependent on number. Using Sturgeon's Law which states that 90% of everything is crap, your small town would have 4 good restaurants and your big town would have 40. With modern media, Zagat will have a review of all 40 and anyone wishing to get a good meal can eat at a different one each week. The larger numbers should make for more good films, reviewers will steer you to them. Unfortunately for your math the truth is that there were 20% fewer films released last year than in the heyday of Hollywood so even the math is going against you.

The other truth is that progress does not proceed on a straight line. Ask someone in medieval Rome.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 30, 2012 at 4:45:18 am

[Herb Sevush] "Using Sturgeon's Law which states that 90% of everything is crap, your small town would have 4 good restaurants and your big town would have 40. With modern media, Zagat will have a review of all 40 and anyone wishing to get a good meal can eat at a different one each week. "

Oh please. This has hints of the kind of elitest twaddle not usually attached to your arguments.

My neighborhood Mexican food joint is one of 100 excellent examples of the craft in Phoenix.

In case you haven't noticed, food has improved incredibly in the past 20 years as culinary schools have moved from niche endeavors to mainstream education.

Heck my wife and I were given a gift card to the local Cocos Bakery Restaurant recently - a decidedly mid-priced family chain restaurant with 110 outlets in the southwest.

The meal was absolutely fine. Flavorful. Reasonably priced. Calorically modest. Less processed and more fresh than the "coffee shop" fare of yesterday.

That's typical out there.

The foodie tide is lifting ALL boats.

I'd argue the same trends apply to the content creation tsunami.

More better competition coming down the road fast.

This is the first era where you likely have more people (certainly WAY more under 30) who would recognize John Stewart on the street than Brian Williams.

And so it goes.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 30, 2012 at 1:21:10 pm

[Bill Davis] "Oh please. This has hints of the kind of elitest twaddle not usually attached to your arguments."

Theodore Sturgeon was a prominent Science fiction writer of the post war period. He was once asked by a reporter "Isn't it true that 90% of science fiction is crap" to which he replied "90% of everything is crap", hence Sturgeons Law. I've found this a good rule of thumb to go by, with the proviso that you understand that Sturgeon was an optimist.

[Bill Davis] "My neighborhood Mexican food joint is one of 100 excellent examples of the craft in Phoenix. "

I just saw a list of 4114 restaurants in Phoenix -

http://phoenixaz.localguides.com/ypcyellow/restaurants.html?a1=1&a2=1796133...

So if you think there are 100 good ones that means 97.5% are crap, so yeah, Sturgeon is definitely an optimist.

[Bill Davis] "In case you haven't noticed, food has improved incredibly in the past 20 years as culinary schools have moved from niche endeavors to mainstream education. "

Not only have I noticed, I make my living in that field and your totally correct, food in america has been improving in both variety and quality for over 20 years.

[Bill Davis] "The foodie tide is lifting ALL boats.

I'd argue the same trends apply to the content creation tsunami."


The foodie tide is not lifting the quality of novels or painting or opera or home construction or education or editing applications. It is lifting the quality of restaurants and supermarkets.

[Bill Davis] "This is the first era where you likely have more people (certainly WAY more under 30) who would recognize John Stewart on the street than Brian Williams."

While I'm a huge fan of the Daily Show, what does this have to do with the price of beans? More young people would recognize Brian Williams than Brit Hume, Beyonce than John Stewart, and JZ than Joe Biden - so what?

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 30, 2012 at 8:53:16 pm

[Herb Sevush] "[Bill Davis] "My neighborhood Mexican food joint is one of 100 excellent examples of the craft in Phoenix. "

I just saw a list of 4114 restaurants in Phoenix -

http://phoenixaz.localguides.com/ypcyellow/restaurants.html?a1=1&a2=1796133.....

So if you think there are 100 good ones that means 97.5% are crap, so yeah, Sturgeon is definitely an optimist.
"


Sigh,

I didn't argue "restaurants" I argued Mexican food joints. And crap is not the opposite of Excellent.

We probably have fewer crap Mexican food joints than most other towns, simply because it's a cultural norm here - unlike say, Deleware, Wisconsin. or Utah - all of which have wonderful regional cuisine and might even have a number of quality Mexican food joints - but most likely not the pure traditional Sonoran style ones we're blessed with here.

So your 97.5% argument (which I understand is fictional hyperbole to make a point) is just too far off for me to accept.

Heck, the web says there are 615 or so Mexican food joints locally. I also noted 100 "Excellent" ones - not good or fair. So you're 97.5% argument falls flatter than ... a tortilla?

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 30, 2012 at 12:00:06 pm

[Herb Sevush] "* 3:10 to Yuma,
* 12 Angry Men
* An Affair to Remember
* The Bridge on the River Kwai
* Decision at Sundown
* Designing Woman
* Desk Set
* Edge of the City
* The Enemy Below
* A Face in the Crowd
* Fear Strikes Out
* Funny Face
* Gunfight at the O.K. Corral
* Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
* Kiss Them for Me
* Love in the Afternoon
* Man of a Thousand Faces
* Old Yeller
* The Pajama Game
* Pal Joey
* Paths of Glory
* The Sad Sack
* The Spirit of St. Louis
* Sweet Smell of Success
* The Tall T
* The Three Faces of Eve
* The Tin Star
* The Wings of Eagles
* Witness for the Prosecution "


I have to hand it to you one this one Herb, that is a great list of films.

Many of today's young film goers just don't appreciate great films like we did when I was coming up.

My parents would say "this is a great film" and we watched it because we respected their view, and it would be a great film.

I can't tell you how many 20 somethings have told me they won't watch black and white.

Think about that for a minute...............some of the greatest films ever made (a few on that list) are b/w

THAT'S one of the reasons you have so much crap out there, because too many people are happy to see crap.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 30, 2012 at 12:48:31 pm

[tony west] "I can't tell you how many 20 somethings have told me they won't watch black and white."

I know, I've had that response many times. It's sad to think they won't watch Love In The Afternoon because is isn't in color. Nobody thinks the greatest paintings ever painted were created in the last 40 years, nobody thinks the greatest novels ever written were published in the last 40 years, so why do they think that all the best movies were made after 1970?

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


Return to posts index

Joseph Owens
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Aug 30, 2012 at 5:37:18 pm

[Herb Sevush] "nobody thinks the greatest novels ever written were published in the last 40 years, so why do they think that all the best movies were made after 1970?"

I refer the matter to Harlan Ellison "The Glass Teat"...

and I hesitate to mention the name "McLuhan" in case Woody Allen steps out from behind the scenery and lambastes me, as so many richly deserve.
http://blog.moviefone.com/2009/09/20/classic-cameos-marshall-mcluhan-annie-...

which, now that I review it, is more relevant than ever, same as Ellison.

jPo

"I always pass on free advice -- its never of any use to me" Oscar Wilde.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
on Sep 2, 2012 at 5:47:42 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Does this also define X as a product not made not for the betterment of the art of editing but merely to avoid the kind of patent wars that Apple is such a proponent of?"

Of course not. It could be both "a betterment of art" and "avoid the kind of patent wars."

Silly man. It's not an either or situation. Now, if they'd just make the damn audio editing GUI!


Return to posts index

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