FORUMS: list search recent posts

Old dogs new tricks

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 8, 2014 at 1:33:24 am

This topic crops up from time to time in this forum and it did again in the “Honda” thread. It seems like a separate thread would be better than hijacking one. James brought up the concern about job security and that caused folks to trot out the tired comments about Avid editors reluctant to change. Quite frankly those comments seem much, more childish than the things they are reacting to. So, a few thoughts.

1. There is nothing that says FCP X or Media Composer or Premiere Pro are any more innovative, superior or advanced than the other tools. They are simply different and it boils down to preferences. Why SHOULD anyone change to FCP X, just because it’s the new kid? If it works. Great. If it doesn’t. Great.

2. Many “film” editors that you guys like to malign - who are heavy Avid users - also use other software when not at work. Such as FCP “legacy” or now X. Same for Smoke editors. This includes the people INSIDE those companies. Many Avid editors are MORE conversant in a range of other NLEs, than are users who only grew up with FCP “legacy” or now FCP X.

3. No NLE is that difficult to learn. The concepts are all largely the same. Even with FCP X. If you want a hard to learn software, try 3D animation or CAD. Similar for getting true mastery of After Effects.

4. The experience of folks in major markets (like LA or NY) at least, is that jobs where Media Composer is used often paid more than jobs where FCP “legacy” was used. So that would tend to reinforce why someone should stay with Media Composer skills.

5. Media Composer continues to be dominant in film and TV work because many contracts require Media Composer project files as a deliverable. This includes all working versions and not just the final sequence. So it’s not merely a matter of converting the final sequence and delivering that.

6. FCP X is not easier for young folks nor harder for old folks to pick up on. In the circle of folks I know, it’s more graybeards who are running FCP X than young folks. I see just as many young folks gravitate to Premiere Pro as I do to FCP X. This includes younger editors and college students.

7. Speed as an editor is a valued asset by clients. Speed comes in part when the software gets out of the way. This comes through muscle memory and intuitive knowledge of the software. That also makes you a more creative editor. If you are strong at Media Composer - or FCP 7 and Premiere is thus the easiest transition - why should you change to something else, unless it’s costing you business? If you are fast with Media Composer - and you keep getting Media Composer jobs - then there simply is no incentive to move to something else.

In the end, it depends on what’s best for your business, your market, your clientele and your own style.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 8, 2014 at 4:51:03 am

Tim, we can shut 'er down now. I think Oliver has covered it! :)


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 8, 2014 at 9:29:50 am

[Bret Williams] "Tim, we can shut 'er down now. I think Oliver has covered it! :)"

On the contrary, I think he just lit a fire!


Return to posts index


Scott Witthaus
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 8, 2014 at 11:23:41 am

Oliver, have you put your "Avid Customer Association Sales Hat" on? ;-)

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Rob Essers
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 8, 2014 at 1:20:36 pm

I think a lot of editors use all 3 packages, there is no clear winner in 2014.

Media composer 8.2 is a strong release with a lot off small but for me big improvements.
I really like Fcpx but it is difficult to make a good audio mix within the software, I really like mixing with hardware controllers and a master compressor only works within a compound clip. Keyframing is also not a strong point. Struggling with playback, always after 2 seconds when I push playback even with Proress. In front of a client not so nice.But I like being creative with all the motion plugins and fast color correction. Premiere, great audio mixing, fast editing, but Speedgrade links are to slow if the sequence is big and has adjustment layers. I hate starting up on big projects with a lot of clips, always have to sort on name and not always save project settings, strange timeline behavior with ripple delete and swapping clips it is not always consistent. But warp stabilizer is great. Generate fast and simple titles, dynamic link to after effects a lot to like.
Media composer, slow effects engine. Slow UI, but a lot off things you can do in MC, no other package has FluidMorph, now thumbnail caching is really great in 8.2. With Baselight and Red 5.5 it is a strong package.

So don’t be narrow minded and say one is the best use the strengths of them all, its a win for you and your clients.

Greetings,
Rob Essers.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 8, 2014 at 3:02:45 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Oliver, have you put your "Avid Customer Association Sales Hat" on? ;-)"

Ironically all of my work is Premiere or FCP X. I do about 1 or 2 jobs a year with Media Composer or FCP 7 (legacy projects).

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 8, 2014 at 8:41:45 pm

Then please somebody explain to me why at the highest levels, industry spends vast amounts on Continuous Process Improvement?

There's a high dollar TV spot running right now (can't remember the sponsor, so clearly it's not targeted to guys like me!) where the consultants come into what looks like some assembly line situation and move the tools closer to where the workers need then and that improves productivity.

The spot rings true. No matter how good a thing is, it can be IMPROVED.

The most recent company to take a stab at improving the actual PROCESS of video editing was Apple with X. A particular editor may not agree that it improved anything, but it's crystal clear that it was that - the desire to IMPROVE things that was the driving force behind the X rebuild. To IMPROVE editing for editors.

This, btw, was also EXACTLY the driving force behind the Premier re-design a few years before Apple did so.

I'm sorry, Oliver, but I have to disagree with you on this. The tools are NOT the same. Both Apple and Adobe (and likely AVID and all the rest for all I know) have significant efforts underway to constantly evolve and improve their tools. And they do so at different rates, with different constituencies needs in mind.

The case is easy to make that some editors will benefit from learning to use ALL the major programs. But other editors can do great concentrating on just one.

And yes, it's possible to pick a poor choice if where your career is heading diverges from the type of tasks your tool is best suited to accomplish. Not because one can't make the other tool work. But because one might not be able to do so as efficiently. And like it or not, efficiency is an increasing issue when budgets and productions schedules are under such wicked pressure.

Adam Epstein was on the road this summer talking about how Premier makes their tight deadline stuff easier via the Adobe approach. Just like Mike Matzdorff has been prominent talking about how FCP X made the Focus teams feature editing far more efficient compared to the AVID workflow they were used to.

So that everyone can learn the differences and similarities and decide what to study when.

To reduce it to "they all work just fine" is the equivalent to saying that Continuous Process Improvement is a stupid waste of time. And it's not.

My opinion, anyway.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 9:18:24 am

[Bill Davis] "The most recent company to take a stab at improving the actual PROCESS of video editing was Apple with X. A particular editor may not agree that it improved anything, but it's crystal clear that it was that - the desire to IMPROVE things that was the driving force behind the X rebuild. To IMPROVE editing for editors. "

You're so right. Shame those blinkered fools at AVID and Adobe can't appreciate the need to improve the editing experience.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 3:53:39 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Nov 9, 2014 at 4:14:03 pm

Oh Gosh, you're right Simon.

I so forgot that if I remark in public that my wife looks great, that automatically implies that the other women around her look like crap.

Or thinking someone who prefers vanilla ice cream, could ever also appreciate the value of chocolate or strawberry. How silly of me.

I keep forgetting these basic rules.

Reminder to self. Stop publicly praising X (and my wife) - to improve others impression of my equanimity.

I'll get right on that.

; )

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index


Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 8:50:22 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Nov 12, 2014 at 3:36:35 pm

[Bill Davis] "I so forgot that if I remark in public that my wife looks great, that automatically implies that the other women around her look like crap."

Yeah. I'm not too sure what the defensive, superfluous snark is all about either OR how it's in any way supposed to add to the discussion in a constructive way. Ah well... guess it's tradition. ;)

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 4:36:48 pm

[Bill Davis] "The most recent company to take a stab at improving the actual PROCESS of video editing was Apple with X."

This does seem to imply that Apple's feeble-minded competitors have made no attempts to improve the editing process in the interim, does it not?

I wonder whether that contention is fully sustainable.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 11:37:43 pm

It does not imply the competitors are "feeble minded."


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 9:48:28 pm

[Bill Davis] "The most recent company to take a stab at improving the actual PROCESS of video editing was Apple with X. A particular editor may not agree that it improved anything, but it's crystal clear that it was that - the desire to IMPROVE things that was the driving force behind the X rebuild. To IMPROVE editing for editors."

No, I believe it is quite clear from everything Apple has stated about the origins of X is that it was created to improve the editing experience for non-editors. The fact that it might improve things for some experienced editors as well was merely gravy.

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


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 8, 2014 at 1:41:19 pm

[Oliver Peters] "In the end, it depends on what’s best for your business, your market, your clientele and your own style."

Well, said. I use whatever NLE is called for or in some cases imposed by the client. In this business you have to learn new technologies all the time. How to operate any NLE is the very least of it.

Tim


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 8, 2014 at 3:13:29 pm

Since I had some part in the discussion you're referring to, I feel somewhat spoken to, so here's my take...


[Oliver Peters] "1. There is nothing that says FCP X or Media Composer or Premiere Pro are any more innovative, superior or advanced than the other tools."


I'm sorry, but to say that an NLE that only NOW is starting to support things like 4K and resolution independence (yes, Avid) and has only very recently become 64bit when the others have had both for several years, is equally advanced? Not to mention the months and months it takes for "qualifying" it to most recent OS releases. For ME that has very little to do with innovative, superior or advanced.


[Oliver Peters] "Why SHOULD anyone change to FCP X, just because it’s the new kid? If it works. Great. If it doesn’t. Great."


I don't see where anyone said or even suggested someone "SHOULD" change anything. Where are you seeing that? Most of it was merely a response to the exact opposite, namely others saying or suggesting (as so often) how useless X is, how stupid the paradigm and certain features are and switching would therefore be stupid and anyone that does is a noob, irrelevant little-guy or fanboy. Or all of the above. If anything, then I've never said more than exactly that: like it, understand it and it caters to your needs? Use it. It doesn't? Then don't.

Countering tired and worn memes does not equal telling anyone to switch.


[Oliver Peters] "2. Many “film” editors that you guys like to malign"


Same thing. Don't see where anyone was "maligned". In fact, I find it rather ironic that you would even suggest that and not in fact the other way around. I for one merely stated that film editors are NOT the be-all and end-all of editing, as they clearly like to be considered by so many (as well as often by themselves also). They only make up a tiny fraction of the editing community, their work is merely the most visible. If anything, then that assumption was being maligned.


[Oliver Peters] "Many Avid editors are MORE conversant in a range of other NLEs"


That, too, is completely contrary to my personal experience of 20+ years. If anything, then Avid editors (and Avid themselves) take the stance that other NLEs are beneath them. Which I can understand from a (financial) justification standpoint, seeing what the vast majority had to spend to be working (and continue to work) with one. Not a position to be in and be hearing that another NLE that costs only a fraction of it, may well be just as good for what they do. Maybe even better. Clearly makes a lot of people very defensive.


[Oliver Peters] "3. No NLE is that difficult to learn. The concepts are all largely the same. Even with FCP X."


Again: couldn't be further from the truth from my experience. My (side-job) experience as a teacher of various NLEs (actually mostly NLE agnostic editing itself on whatever NLE was there) since 2004. Specifically the difference to teaching legacy FCP (pretty much the same as the others, no?), which I've taught since v5, and FCP X is hugely different. Because of the equally huge difference in learning curve, yes. Others here have said that as well and most likely can easily confirm. Have you taught or do you teach either of the two?


[Oliver Peters] "where Media Composer is used often paid more than jobs where FCP “legacy” was used. "


Which is even more ridiculous in the context of "they're all the same" or "the tool is irrelevant" notions. But such is the market.


[Oliver Peters] "6. FCP X is not easier for young folks nor harder for old folks to pick up on."


Unless you in fact teach, I don't know where you're getting the confidence or data to make that claim. But I will give you that the fact that students NEW or less experienced with editing, pick up on FCP X exponentially faster is irrelevant to their age, yes. But how fast is very much relevant to their age. Since, as with anything else, younger people of course pick up on and grasp new things faster than older in general.


[Oliver Peters] "In the circle of folks I know, it’s more graybeards who are running FCP X than young folks."


Yes, I actually sell a very large part of my FCP X trainings to people well above the 45-50 mark, with an amazingly small amount of support needed. Which again, for me, shows how easy X is to learn. Most come from a few years on other NLEs (usually Windows) with utter frustration. I can't even so much as remember a hand full of 45+ people I trained in legacy. In fact, MY OWN learning of FCP X was severely inhibited by my previous experience and muscle memory in the beginning. Nothing of which I see with newcomers, but just with the "graybeards" with similar or equal experience.


[Oliver Peters] "Speed comes in part when the software gets out of the way. "


Perfectly put. And FCP X caters to that point like no other NLE imho. Whether you personally agree or not. As the quote from the project manager at Aztec goes that I've quoted before: "It feels as if Final Cut Pro X is designed for artists, while other editing systems are for operators." ... with which I think he nails it 100%. But sure, as usual, YMMV. Depending on your handicap that is.


[Oliver Peters] "If you are fast with Media Composer - and you keep getting Media Composer jobs - then there simply is no incentive to move to something else.
In the end, it depends on what’s best for your business, your market, your clientele and your own style."



Exactly. And I for one have never suggested anything else myself, nor do I recall anyone else telling an Avid or Ppro user they should in any other thread... or did I miss something? Because that's what you seem to be suggesting.

But I also don't go trolling Premiere or Avid forums either, looking for a chance to say how lame they are, just because I use one of the others. With nonsensical memes and ludicrous claims based on mere assumption and no actual experience. Because I don't in fact know Avid or PPro well enough (anymore) to dare to judge. I don't care either. It's others doing the exact opposite that turned the thread you're referencing into what it became.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 8, 2014 at 3:52:57 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "For ME that has very little to do with innovative, superior or advanced."

There are very few true innovations in FCP X that haven't first been done elsewhere. Yes, Apple does a tremendous job of improving these features and making them cohesive. Plus providing a great user experience. That's what Apple does so well, though it often errs on the side of oversimplification. And , of course, it's modern code without the restrictions of needing to be cross-platform. But, the only really new and unique features in FCP X are skimming (first in iMovie, though) and creating your own effects with Motion (first in FCP "legacy"). If anything Motion is the true innovation.

[Robin S. Kurz] "I don't see where anyone said or even suggested someone "SHOULD" change anything."

Really? I see it differently, but I'm speaking way more generally about tone.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Same thing. Don't see where anyone was "maligned"."

Again, our perspectives differ.

[Robin S. Kurz] "That, too, is completely contrary to my personal experience of 20+ years. If anything, then Avid editors (and Avid themselves) take the stance that other NLEs are beneath them."

Not my experience. I know more Avid editors who are solid on other NLEs than I know editors that started with FCP "legacy" who can say the same. And this market had been predominantly FCP-based - now shifting to Premiere Pro.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Again: couldn't be further from the truth from my experience. My (side-job) experience as a teacher of various NLEs (actually mostly NLE agnostic editing itself on whatever NLE was there) since 2004."

I've been teaching film students for over a dozen years. This is a once-a-year gig at an established film program. Over the years I've taught them Media Composer, Premiere/Premiere Pro, FCP "legacy" and FCP X. In fact last year I went BACK to FCP 7 because the previous year with X didn't go so well. This year I'm still debating between X and PPro. The bottom line is that they struggle with the same issues that experienced users do when shifting to something new. Some people take to X like a duck to water and others simply do not. But granted, part of the learning motivation is what will they get a job with. The year I taught X, I received a lot of resistance, because it didn't help with potential employment skills. The "I'm teaching you editing concepts" argument didn't fly.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Unless you in fact teach, I don't know where you're getting the confidence or data to make that claim."

See above.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Yes, I actually sell a very large part of my FCP X trainings to people well above the 45-50 mark, with an amazingly small amount of support needed. Which again, for me, shows how easy X is to learn. Most come from a few years on other NLEs (usually Windows) with utter frustration."

While I completely agree, that stat is skewed, since you are judging by people who already want a change because they aren't happy with what they know or use now. You don't know what the number is that isn't buying your training.

[Robin S. Kurz] "And FCP X caters to that point like no other NLE imho. Whether you personally agree or not. "

Well I don't agree. I think it's 50/50. For me, the event side organization is significantly better and faster. OTOH, editing in the timeline is worse, once finesse is required. Keyframes are a prime example.

[Robin S. Kurz] "It's others doing the exact opposite that turned the thread you're referencing into what it became."

How did this become about you? ;-)

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Mark Raudonis
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 8, 2014 at 6:11:01 pm

[Oliver Peters] "How did this become about you? ;-)"

You buried the lead!!!

mark



Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 8, 2014 at 7:51:09 pm

[Mark Raudonis] "
You buried the lead!!!"


Now that's funny.

Tim


Return to posts index


Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 8:14:19 pm

[Oliver Peters] "There are very few true innovations in FCP X that haven't first been done elsewhere."


Where did I ever infer anything even close to that, Oliver? (I'm seeing a pattern here. Spoiler: I didn't.) Aside from the fact that FCP X most definitely was years ahead in many workflow ways, even in it's first incarnation, now that you mention it. But I guess everyone else already had things such as background import, transcoding, rendering and things such as auditions etc. etc.?

"Hover Scrub", said background rendering/import/transcoding, additional metadata windows/support and a long list of other things were OF COURSE on the top of everyone's list long before X was even considered. :D

I never spoke of FCP X specifically. I was referring to your claim and quoting the three adjectives that came from you, remember? But if the aforementioned points actually still somehow render Avid equally "innovative, superior or advanced" as the rest in your book, then at least I know what I'm up against. Must be an interpretation or perspective thing? :)


[Oliver Peters] "creating your own effects with Motion (first in FCP "legacy"). "


How and when could you make effects for FCP 7 with Motion in any way even close to the way you can now, first or ever? Another spoiler: you couldn't.


[Oliver Peters] "Really? I see it differently, but I'm speaking way more generally about tone."


Ah. So your personal, subjective (completely unbiased) interpretation or "feeling". Right. Now I understand how I "said" so many things I didn't. :D


[Oliver Peters] "Again, our perspectives differ."


Right. Why substantiate a claim when you can simply accuse others of being "misinterpretable".


[Oliver Peters] "this market had been predominantly FCP-based - now shifting to Premiere Pro."


A claim you can substantiate with actual numbers and not just anecdotal evidence, right? Or what is the vague "this market" referring to?


[Oliver Peters] "The bottom line is that they struggle with the same issues that experienced users do when shifting to something new."


Thank you. My point exactly. The key being "experienced users", just as I said and clearly differentiated between.


[Oliver Peters] "you are judging by people who already want a change because they aren't happy with what they know or use now. You don't know what the number is that isn't buying your training."


Erm... yes? :-))) In other words "anyone not wanting to learn an NLE and/or not getting any training, doesn't get it and 'has issues'"? Hmmm... well, in that case, yeah... you're right and once again underscores my original point. Never mind that that applies to ANY software. Why and how the heck could I be referencing anyone NOT wanting to switch or NOT buying training of sorts? Would you rather I just make things up or go by what I interpret the... oh, wait... :D

And how is that even the least bit relevant to the overall comprehensibility of a software—your original point—by any stretch of the imagination?? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Not to mention that that was meant purely anecdotal and not somehow global.

But we can certainly agree that someone unwilling or in no need to learn something will (surprise!) actually have "issues" doing so, yes.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 10:07:55 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Where did I ever infer anything even close to that, Oliver?"

Do you think you can try to dial the ego down? The whole discussion doesn't revolve around you.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Aside from the fact that FCP X most definitely was years ahead in many workflow ways, even in it's first incarnation,"

BS. It was so advanced that multiple vendors had to jump in and fill in the blanks to augment what you couldn't do with getting in and out of X. Workflow doesn't involve one application in isolation. As recent as this week, I am still unable to to get a perfect translation of FCP 7 into X, nor from X to Resolve without some level of manual fixes.

[Robin S. Kurz] "background import, transcoding, rendering and things such as auditions etc. etc.?"

Nothing background about some of these. Since they happen in idle time, not in the background. Proxy and auditions are unique in how that's handled. However other background functions were being done in the FAST editing systems a decade ago.

[Robin S. Kurz] "additional metadata windows/support"

What are you talking about? Have you ever looked at the level of metadata supported in something like Media Composer?

[Robin S. Kurz] "How and when could you make effects for FCP 7 with Motion in any way even close to the way you can now, first or ever? Another spoiler: you couldn't."

Correct. The FCP 7 comment wasn't specifically tied to Motion, but in creating custom effects (using FxScript). It was actually a positive reference for Apple, even though didn't seem to understand that.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 3:15:30 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Nov 10, 2014 at 3:26:00 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Do you think you can try to dial the ego down?"

Wow... the irony of that coming from you of all people in the context of this thread is exquisite.

Fine, Oliver. You want to stoop down to the usual ad hominem personal attack level. We're that desperate I guess. Auguring points that were never made other than by yourself. Shifting the goal posts as you go along. Especially since I'm not even the one using his personal experience exclusively... speaking of ego... posing it as the ultimate yardstick. (the definition of solipsism btw)

There are at least two other trainers here that will say the same when it comes to learning curve. Oh well. I guess it's up to the individual who he's going to trust on the matter. But the mere claim that FCP X's GUI is equally as "daunting" when simply looked at as e.g. Avid's is, is just simply ludicrous imho. The mere fact that everyone doing nothing BUT looking at it call it "iMovie Pro" makes that notion supremely nonsensical.

Therefore this is clearly not a discussion I need a part of. Sorry if we can't all be the echo-chamber you are apparently seeking.

I'm actually surprised that various others haven't already chimed in to drag the level down much earlier. :-D Must have been the weekend.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 8, 2014 at 7:55:12 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "[Oliver Peters] "Speed comes in part when the software gets out of the way. "


Perfectly put. And FCP X caters to that point like no other NLE imho. Whether you personally agree or not. As the quote from the project manager at Aztec goes that I've quoted before: "It feels as if Final Cut Pro X is designed for artists, while other editing systems are for operators." ... with which I think he nails it 100%. But sure, as usual, YMMV. Depending on your handicap that is."


I gotta disagree. IMO FCPX is the fastest for prep/logging/organizing etc. and therefore feels more designed for AE work than for "artists". As far as timeline editing goes, theres too much that needs to be done with the mouse and clicking and dragging. Im constantly reminded i'm using a piece of software once in the timeline, especially with all the hand holding animations,etc where as the other apps can be driven from the keyboard more efficiently, letting the software fade into the background. This is just my opinion obviously and everyone has there own style of editing.

what happened before FCPX? Did you only feel like an "operator"? were you not artistic in FCP legend? or Avid or Premiere Pro? That quote is super annoying to me for some reason.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 8, 2014 at 9:07:42 pm

[Neil Goodman] "As far as timeline editing goes, theres too much that needs to be done with the mouse and clicking and dragging."

Uh.

Look, even experienced X editors sometimes have little clue about how much keyboard driving is actually possible.

As an example, take a few minutes and, watch as Steve Martin (an X editor from day one!) gets a lesson in one very small aspect of keyboard shortcut navigation from Sam Mestman on MacBreak Studio.







The point is that editors who are still mostly oriented to keyboard shortcut editing in a NON X environment will come looking to reproduce their editing experience in X. And this is NOT how things work. Instead, X has keyboard shortcuts that are specific to ITS workflow.

It's not the tool. It's learning to think like the tool so you can take full advantage of it.

My 2 cents.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 8, 2014 at 10:11:14 pm

[Bill Davis] "Look, even experienced X editors sometimes have little clue about how much keyboard driving is actually possible."

Since you bring itup maybe you know the answer to this one. Is there a keyboard shortcut for the "clear range" function n the mark menu? I've yet to find one but I figure I must be missing something simple.

Tim


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 8, 2014 at 10:56:47 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Nov 8, 2014 at 11:07:58 pm

Option X clears one or more selected ranges in the EB.

And the C key selects whatever is under the "ball" in any storyline. A second tap on C deselects it. I see remarkably few X editors use these, but they are there. I think there was so much new to learn about X editing concventions that it's taken a while for editors to dive too deeply into it.

That said, some editors like the guy in Brazil who cut this have likely taken the time to dig deep.







As I've mentioned, global adoption seems to be running seriously ahead of whats happened here in the US.

Sigh.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 12:23:35 am

Thanks, Bill. Took a class recently and the instructor didn't have an answer.

Tim


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 12:38:33 am

[Bill Davis] "That said, some editors like the guy in Brazil who cut this have likely taken the time to dig deep."

Which begs the question, what exactly was done in this spot using FCP X? The offline edit of the raw footage or the full comp, complete with effects?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 3:48:55 am
Last Edited By Neil Goodman on Nov 9, 2014 at 4:56:52 am

[Oliver Peters] "[Bill Davis] "That said, some editors like the guy in Brazil who cut this have likely taken the time to dig deep."

Which begs the question, what exactly was done in this spot using FCP X? The offline edit of the raw footage or the full comp, complete with effects?

- Oliver"



Im going to guess the first option.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 2:10:21 pm

[Neil Goodman] "Im going to guess the first option."

Why? This would seem like an offline edit that gets passed on to the VFX folks for embellishing. Granted many of the HUD overlays and even tracking could be done in X or in Motion. That's why I wonder which part was done in X.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 3:14:28 pm

Why is this even the question? We're talking about the viability of a tool. It's FCP X OR NOT the Debate. This is an editor hired to edit on a high dollar project in a foreign (to us Americans) country using FCP X. And as such it's on point whether he did the online, the offline or just pulled a cut list for a guy on a Steenbeck. And its germane to my contention that X is being viewed and used in high end editing more outside the US than it is here. Simple as that.

Or is the new slam at X that it somehow "limits" the type of editing an operator can do? That its only a viable editorial choice "within limits?" If that's the argument, then make it. Where does X fail. And is the failure relevant and important. Because while, yes, X still doesn't do OMF (an early stopper for some pro workflows), most people seem to acknowledge that the need to do so is kinda like the need to output type on photo paper for newspaper advertising. An echo of a time that better technology is pushing into history.

So if X somehow compares poorly to its competitors, then make the case why what X does is "less than" what Premier or AVID could do in a similar high dollar spot workflow - That way we can all better understand its limitations. Because that seems to be the contention here. Or am I misreading this?

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 9:47:12 pm

[Bill Davis] "Why is this even the question? We're talking about the viability of a tool. ...
Or is the new slam at X that it somehow "limits" the type of editing an operator can do? "


Wow. A little touchy maybe? It's a legitimate question. If it's just off-lining the spot, then that could be done with any NLE. If it's full compositing then there a real question of workflow that we could all learn from. Certainly the latter is something that generally wouldn't be attempted on MC, PPro, FCP7 or other NLEs.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 7:42:52 am

Oliver,

But X is not sold nor offered as a compositing program. It's an NLE. The presumption is that it did the cutting. And the story isn't that X is doing something that another NLE can't do. It's that X is being selected to do the job by yet another high end editor to do another high profile job.

Not because it's better at compositing, but because it's an efficient full featured editorial choice. Nothing more than that. If you can show me work at the level of my post coming out of a US ad shop, I'd love to see it. But we've now seen exactly that from England and Brazil. And in each case I suspect the editor in question needed at least six months to get to the level where he or she would be comfortable taking on work with it with these types of budgets on the line. Which I believe supports my point that the US is slower to adapt to it than elsewhere. Thats all.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 5:47:21 pm

[Bill Davis] "But X is not sold nor offered as a compositing program. It's an NLE. The presumption is that it did the cutting. And the story isn't that X is doing something that another NLE can't do. It's that X is being selected to do the job by yet another high end editor to do another high profile job."

I think the important factor is workflow. Cutting together a spot by building the base for the effects could be done with any NLE by a talented editor. That's hardly the question, nor what makes the use of X interesting. The Honda spot is not interesting because X was used, but rather the workflow of cutting two mirrored spots simultaneously and how specific functions in X made that process easier.

[Bill Davis] " If you can show me work at the level of my post coming out of a US ad shop, I'd love to see it."

What? I don't have anything to point to right at this moment, but you are saying that no US spot features this level of effects and compositing? Seems pretty unlikely. OTOH, what about this oldie, but goodie?



[Bill Davis] "Which I believe supports my point that the US is slower to adapt to it than elsewhere."

I just don't see how you come to that conclusion. Maybe others are more adventurous. Maybe the factors are completely different. Or maybe the US is? So what?

In the end, I could care less who uses or doesn't use a given NLE. If there's a choice, then I'd like to know why they made that choice. What about the tool aided the workflow. Honda R and FCP X clearly identify that, as does Fincher's group using PProCC for "Gone Girl". Different circumstances, but workflow drove the decision. Knowing the context adds to the learning.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 6:29:01 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Nov 11, 2014 at 6:29:54 pm

[Oliver Peters] "but you are saying that no US spot features this level of effects and compositing? "

Once again, a complete misinterpretation i.e. misrepresentation of what was meant or said.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 6:33:22 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Once again, a complete misinterpretation i.e. misrepresentation of what was meant or said."

Then explain it to me, since you didn't say it.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 7:21:11 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I just don't see how you come to that conclusion. Maybe others are more adventurous. Maybe the factors are completely different. Or maybe the US is? So what?"

Yeah, that is kind of an odd conclusion...

Bill... not trying to pile on here, but I almost don't know what to say. Have you really not heard of Imaginary Forces, Digital Domain or Method Studios? These are a few the bigger US shops, but there are a LOT of smaller and medium sized shops in the US doing the kind of work you're describing. The US is definitely not falling behind in high-end commercial/VFX work.

http://www.imaginaryforces.com/
http://www.digitaldomain.com/
http://www.methodstudios.com/

Shawn



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 8:38:33 pm

[Shawn Miller] "The US is definitely not falling behind in high-end commercial/VFX work. "

And, of course the complete antithesis of that spot ;-)







- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 9:10:02 pm

[Oliver Peters] "[Shawn Miller] "The US is definitely not falling behind in high-end commercial/VFX work. "

And, of course the complete antithesis of that spot ;-)"


lol - I guess there's always someone willing to blow the curve.

FuseFX, that is my answer to that video. :-)







Shawn



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 15, 2014 at 6:27:47 am

Aaaahhhhhrrrgggg.

I'm NOT saying that nobody in the US does great Ad work. I spent years as an ad agency owner and I'm fully aware of the quality of US advertising creative effort - and it's absolutely outstanding.

This is a forum centered about the use of FCP X. And I was noting that so far, I haven't seen US agencies indicating that they are using FCP X at the level that some ad shops clearly are in Europe.

Again. (that disclaimer thing yet once more) I'm NOT saying that X is the only thing that can cut great ads. Or that using X makes a great ad even greater.

I'm saying that US editors have been slower to adopt X than it appears editors have been - at least in the UK and Brazil. (and some other places such as Belgium and Denmark where I've also seen workflow stories specifically about the use of X in high dollar situations.

I also participate in other FCP X destination boards, and on those, the ratio of NON US editors cutting on X to US editors cutting on X is notable.

It's not scientific. But it's something I've observed. If, as I believe, X gives an experienced editor some advantages in some types of editing (the Honda ad is an excellent example) then it's fair to ask whether or not the mastery of this different tool across more industries could even possibly put US creatives at even a tiny disadvantage over time.

I'm not saying it DOES. I'm interested in whether the trend I've been observing might lead us there. It's the same thing as reading that one of the Scandinavian countries (can't recall which) has virtually weaned themselves off fossil fuels over the past decade or so. That might well provide them a competitive advantage if oil prices go north again. So it's worth noticing. Thats all.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 15, 2014 at 2:20:17 pm

[Bill Davis] "And I was noting that so far, I haven't seen US agencies indicating that they are using FCP X at the level that some ad shops clearly are in Europe. "

Thanks for the clarification. That's not how it originally came across, however (at least to me). Of course, what we don't know is whether there are US shops cutting on X that simply haven't received any publicity. @Radical comes to mind and after the initial hoopla about them, there seems to be little indication that they really have shifted to X as their main tool. Just one of many options. Or, they've just chosen to be quiet about it.

[Bill Davis] "then it's fair to ask whether or not the mastery of this different tool across more industries could even possibly put US creatives at even a tiny disadvantage over time"

I agree that it could be possible, but it seems a stretch. That means that the entire range of creativity applied to a commercial hinges on a single tool. That would seem unlikely. It might increase efficiency within a single part of the workflow. I think editors who are very deep into Premiere Pro and After Effects and really depend on Dynamic Link might argue quite the opposite point-of-view.

In the end, agencies tend to pick the editor by his talent (or who works best with the director) and less on the tools they use. Agencies have never cared what I cut with, except when it doesn't work ;-)

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 15, 2014 at 5:15:10 pm

[Bill Davis] "This is a forum centered about the use of FCP X. "

Or Not. ;)

[Bill Davis] " It's the same thing as reading that one of the Scandinavian countries (can't recall which) has virtually weaned themselves off fossil fuels over the past decade or so. That might well provide them a competitive advantage if oil prices go north again. So it's worth noticing. Thats all.
"


I never thought I'd say this but can we go back to using car analogies? ;)


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 1:58:03 am

[Bill Davis] "As I've mentioned, global adoption seems to be running seriously ahead of whats happened here in the US.

Sigh."



Why does it matter, Bill?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 3:20:41 pm

Why? Because it won't be that long before we'll all be competing for editing projects - on line - globally?

Or what precisely did you think Adobe Anywhere and iCloud are all about?

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 3:59:56 pm

[Bill Davis] "Why? Because it won't be that long before we'll all be competing for editing projects - on line - globally?"

Right, and I'm looking forward to remote editing really maturing because it means I won't have to be in LA in order to keep working w/my LA network (and it will make it easier for me to work with people not in LA). I've been waiting for a s long distance editing to improve for years which is one reason why I'm so interested in the development of Avid Everywhere and Adobe Anywhere.

What does that have to do with the adoption rate of X though? This is the second thread recently (the Honda thread being the first) where you've expressed concern because you think not enough people in the U.S. are using X compared to other parts of the world. Why? What's the prize for winning the FCP X adoption race? Do you think X is such a vastly superior NLE across the board that anyone not using X is inherently at a significant disadvantage regardless of individual skill, experience and/or the workflow requirements of the job at hand?


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 4:32:38 pm
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on Nov 9, 2014 at 4:37:30 pm

[Bill Davis] "I think there was so much new to learn about X editing concventions that it's taken a while for editors to dive too deeply into it.

That said, some editors like the guy in Brazil who cut this have likely taken the time to dig deep."


This is true as you are right to keep reminding us and it's clear that you have taken the trouble to dive deeper than most.

I'm guessing that you also took the time to dive deeply into Media Composer and Premiere before deciding that FCP X was the right choice not just for you but also for the editing world at large - and more importantly that it's the only real weapon left in the fight to arrest the decline of the US in the global production marketplace.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 8, 2014 at 10:57:59 pm

And yes, it's possible to pick a poor choice if where your career is heading diverges from the type of tasks your tool is best suited to accomplish. Not because one can't make the other tool work. But because one might not be able to do so as efficiently. And like it or not, efficiency is an increasing issue when budgets and productions schedules are under such wicked pressure.

Man, that's about it in a nutshell for me. I like FCPX. I really do, but it's a poor choice for me due to it only being on one platform and needing so many different additional programs that the people I work with around the world may or may not use. Creative Suite has made me a better Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign artist. It's made me a better After Effects user, Editor, Mixer and Colorist. My career requires me to be all these things. And the same requirements are on the people I work with. For me and my position, CC is most efficient.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 3:54:06 am

[Bill Davis] "The point is that editors who are still mostly oriented to keyboard shortcut editing in a NON X environment will come looking to reproduce their editing experience in X. And this is NOT how things work. Instead, X has keyboard shortcuts that are specific to ITS workflow.
"


Thanks for the link. The browser stuff is cool and indeed helpfull. The timeline editing is not necessarily specific to X's workflow tho. Regular trimming and top and tail editing isnt an X specific workflow. Thats just normal timeline function except with a different key command and I was already aware and utilizing those shortcuts.

In order to get dynamic trim feedback, you need to use the mouse.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 2:13:42 pm

[Neil Goodman] "The timeline editing is not necessarily specific to X's workflow tho."

Aside from these tips, the magnetic timeline concept came in with the original Media Composer (heads timeline view). Connected clips were there in DPS Velocity (master/slave links). Even audio "tracks" above or below picture tracks were used in some other NLE (I forget which). What Apple has done is nicely combined all of those into a modern approach.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 3:29:59 pm

So the actual slug line for X should be: The best features of many other editing software packages - all rolled into one!

I can live with that.

; )

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 9:10:41 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Nov 9, 2014 at 9:17:55 pm

[Bill Davis] "So the actual slug line for X should be: The best features of many other editing software packages - all rolled into one!"

I guess so. :-D

But then some can't seem to see any difference in IF something was implemented and HOW it was implemented. In which case, when the HOW is the actual relevant factor, the whole implication implodes from the get go anyway.

At least for me "certain similarities" doesn't quite equate with "same and done before". But then I guess that's just another question of perception/interpretation? You know, like the iPhone wasn't innovative, advanced etc. since there were clearly cell phones for years before it! :)

Never mind that everything is a remix anyway. It's all about HOW.



- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 3:25:50 pm

Neil, while its completely true that top and tail trimming isn't unique to X, and other NLEs have had "trim and close gap" functions, X's magnetic timeline does add a productivity twist to it since it comes with vertical grouping and clip collision avoidance as the default standard.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 8:44:13 pm

[Neil Goodman] "I gotta disagree."

You certainly may. That's what we're here for. :)

[Neil Goodman] "As far as timeline editing goes, theres too much that needs to be done with the mouse and clicking and dragging."

I can only assume that you don't know your way around X well enough then. Sounds an awful lot like the "it doesn't work the way I'm used to and or as I expect, therefore it doesn't work at all" problem. Because I know of nearly nothing that can't in fact be done with the keyboard if needed. For me there's also a big distinction between "works differently" and "doesn't work at all". You should be sure you actually know of all the options and possibilities before you make such an assumption, as apparently you didn't. I'd have posted Sam's video at this point also had Bill not already done it.

[Neil Goodman] "Did you only feel like an "operator"? were you not artistic in FCP legend [sic]?"

Since working with X? Wow... do I EVER realize how much of my work was just plain operating, yes. Sure I was "artistic", but the road from A to B was simply exponentially longer in 7 than in X, no doubt about it. Especially when it comes to larger projects. A difference of day and night for me.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 3:57:05 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "I'm sorry, but to say that an NLE that only NOW is starting to support things like 4K and resolution independence (yes, Avid) and has only very recently become 64bit when the others have had both for several years, is equally advanced? Not to mention the months and months it takes for "qualifying" it to most recent OS releases. For ME that has very little to do with innovative, superior or advanced."

Let's just get this out of the way: I'm not Avid's biggest fan. I have written here before about how ridiculous it was that their solution to the problem of hard-coded SD resolutions as HD came around was... hard-coded HD resolutions as 4K was coming around.

But even I'm not sure your criticism of Avid is fair.

1) Avid has maintained unmatched superiority on collaborative workflow for years.

2) Avid's 64-bitness came later than the others, but it was absolutely seamless. They updated the application in pieces over several releases, re-writing portions to be 64-bit safe, then flipped the 64-bit switch when everything was ready. (Citation: http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/11/64-bit/)

3) Building on that last point, keeping a common user interface over a period of years doesn't necessarily indicate old code; it just means that the interface hasn't changed (which itself may actually require a significant amount of work). Media Composer has undergone major architectural changes in the last few years: Open I/O, AMA, resolution independence. Of course, the interface has actually changed, too, gaining tabs, so that's another significant architectural change. Taken together, this represents a huge amount of real and valuable under-the-hood work that is superficially dismissed here because Avid's user-facing conventions have been maintained.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that Avid has shown very little innovation lately, but I think it's hard to argue that Avid is in no way "superior" or "advanced."

A final thought on Avid: I know many here consider Media Composer to be a stagnant application, but I think that an Avid editor would view it as a stable platform. Avid provides this to their user base in a way that Adobe does to an extent and Apple does not at all. Perhaps the old-fashioned idea of continuity is innovative in today's environment after all.

Despite the tired, worn meme of the ossified Avid editor, valuing stability is not the same as fear of change. We do still teach new dogs old tricks, too.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 4:26:05 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Nov 10, 2014 at 4:28:59 pm

[Walter Soyka] "But even I'm not sure your criticism of Avid is fair. "

I wasn't belittling the engineering efforts themselves by any means. Nor Avid themselves for that matter. I'm quite aware of the fact that going 64bit in itself was a huge undertaking for many, especially after the deprecation of the Carbon API. Let's not forget those that in fact killed a or all products just because of it for either a few years if not altogether. In fact making a 64bit version of—who'd have guessed it—FCP itself such an undertaking, that a rebuild from the ground up was necessary. In which case I highly commend the maracas it took to seize the moment to in fact completely rethink everything else from the ground up also. Instead of just slapping the old and worn on top of everything new as a (much!) easy(er) way out.

As I'm sure some will completely disagree with. :)

My point was merely that if you are effectively playing catch-up with such essential features and tech for literally years, then you don't, in my book, qualify as "innovative, superior or advanced" by any stretch of the imagination, as I said. Especially in light of what others did in the same timeframe, and not just Apple. There are other things to be said about Avid without having to result to such—again, imho—overdrawn and misleading comparisons. In which case you, if anything, belittle the achievements of others. I'm sure Avid is a superb NLE... in the meantime. :-P

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 5:26:47 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "In fact making a 64bit version of—who'd have guessed it—FCP itself such an undertaking, that a rebuild from the ground up was necessary. In which case I highly commend the maracas it took to seize the moment to in fact completely rethink everything else from the ground up also. Instead of just slapping the old and worn on top of everything new as a (much!) easy(er) way out."

I agree that Apple made a brave choice in starting over from scratch, but I think it was a uniquely easy choice for Apple to make for a variety of reasons -- not the least of which is that there was no real cost to the company if the gambit failed.


[Robin S. Kurz] "My point was merely that if you are effectively playing catch-up with such essential features and tech for literally years, then you don't, in my book, qualify as "innovative, superior or advanced" by any stretch of the imagination, as I said. Especially in light of what others did in the same timeframe, and not just Apple. There are other things to be said about Avid without having to result to such—again, imho—overdrawn and misleading comparisons. In which case you, if anything, belittle the achievements of others."

And my point is that "playing catch-up" is a matter of perspective. Since all the NLEs have unique features and express ideas that seem to cross-pollinate, anyone can argue that someone else is playing catch-up to their own favorite NLE.

What have I said that's overdrawn and misleading?

And I certainly don't intend to belittle the achievements of others. I was talking about Avid, and the only comparison I drew to other developers was their attitude toward cross-version compatibility. I don't view this as a zero-sum game and I am capable of thinking highly of multiple NLEs for different reasons.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 6:26:20 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I agree that Apple made a brave choice in starting over from scratch, but I think it was a uniquely easy choice for Apple to make for a variety of reasons -- not the least of which is that there was no real cost to the company if the gambit failed."

I find that to be a meretricious cop-out and gross devaluation of any and every vision, effort and/or intention they, the FCP dev team, had or have with FCP X if you ask me. Since if the whole thing somehow didn't matter either way, then why DID they code the by far most elaborate app they ever have to date? Why not go the "easy route" as I described? Why even have FCP at all? Your notion makes no sense whatsoever to me in light of the facts. And no, not just to sell hardware, even though that will have played into it, sure. Duh, they're a profit oriented business.

If you knew anyone from the FCP team, as I do, then you'd know very quickly how passionate and serious they are about making the best possible product. To suggest that it was just "for fun" or that it didn't matter to anyone whether it succeeded or failed, just because they could "afford" it, is just plain ludicrous and I'm sure pretty darn insulting to them. If you believe that, then you would appear not to have any idea how Apple actually works, specifically the FCP team.

Never mind that we're talking about the most valuable company on the planet. I guess, by that logic, something you become when you have some sort of willy-nilly business practice, where things are decided because, hey, screw it, who cares if we blow a few hundred million and make for horrible PR?

Oh right. It's just all iPhones and luck. I forget. :D

[Walter Soyka] "And my point is that "playing catch-up" is a matter of perspective."

Sorry, but not when it comes to industry and technological basics and standards for this industry, which both 4K and 64bit are. I was never referring to some individual *feature*.

[Walter Soyka] "What have I said that's overdrawn and misleading?"

I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the initial notion that Avid somehow qualifies for the three aforementioned traits in comparison to a slew of others. In general terms and in reference to the overall gist of the thread (to the point where you joined). I guess I should have used the term "one" instead of "you". But I thought it was obvious I was speaking in general, not to you specifically. My bad.

[Walter Soyka] "I was talking about Avid"

Yes, and again, as I understood it, equating what they have achieved (most of all WHEN they achieved it) with the achievements of others. As others before you, whom I was referring to. Which again I found to be a extremely short-sighted take on the matter. Since if we had been having this conversation just a mere six months to a year ago there would have been very little to argue in favor of Avid in respect to the aforementioned points.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 8:49:43 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "I find that to be a meretricious cop-out and gross devaluation of any and every vision, effort and/or intention they, the FCP dev team, had or have with FCP X if you ask me. Since if the whole thing somehow didn't matter either way, then why DID they code the by far most elaborate app they ever have to date? Why not go the "easy route" as I described? Why even have FCP at all? Your notion makes no sense whatsoever to me in light of the facts. And no, not just to sell hardware, even though that will have played into it, sure. Duh, they're a profit oriented business."

Robin, I think you may be misreading me. Perhaps you have seen my comments that are pro-Adobe, or pro-Avid, or pro-Autodesk, and assumed that this must mean I am anti-Apple. This is not the case; I just chafe a bit at the sentiment so often expressed here that FCP X is the NLE of Destiny and that using any other is a poor choice.

These are not your words, but with your missionary zeal about FCP X and near refusal to recognize anything positive about a competing product, this is how you often come across.

Instead, I have this crazy "vive la différence" point of view that there's something unique to be appreciated from each of the NLEs on the market right now.

I rather like FCP X. I like the "search don't sort" approach to organization. I was skeptical about the timeline, but now my biggest criticism of FCP X's timeline is that it's not FCPXish enough!

I like Motion, too, having used it since version 1. I've sold FCPX/M5 onto projects where they were the best choice, but the Apple apps just happen to be ill-suited for my needs most of the time.

I happen to think that for Apple to build a modern app that simply aped Macromedia's 1990s thinking, ignored the metadata-driven design foundations they had established in their other home-grown apps over the last few years, and was narrowly targeted at a demanding niche market would have been the hard choice: it's not a good fit for Apple today at all! How would you justify that decision in light of what Apple has become in the last 15 years?

FCP X is an NLE, done the Apple way. Surely you don't disagree with that.

It would have been a colossal risk for any other company in this space to introduce a radical, new, incompatible NLE: one that could have cost them nearly their entire user base. Do you disagree with that?

I stand by my words. It was brave of Apple to re-imagine the NLE, but it was uniquely easy for Apple to "think different" in this space.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 12, 2014 at 2:27:00 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I just chafe a bit at the sentiment so often expressed here that FCP X is the NLE of Destiny and that using any other is a poor choice."

I don't like that sentiment either, and I'm a person who likes what X has to offer.

I know that X users, and I include myself in this, get defensive. Sometimes we have to be, but the door swings both ways.

For example:

It seems that experienced people come in here, shoot down anyone who is trying something different, using new software successfully in professional environments, on real, public facing, money making jobs, almost to the point of not quite believing, or belittling any efforts where X was used, including a giant Hollywood movie. Bill Davis did a pretty cool thing and invited a discussion with a real working editor, on an international job, for what I found to be tremendously well produced and creative advertisement (shot on film with a uniquely Apple and FCPX workflow), and that editor was subsequently shooed out of here as there were few constructive questions asked, just more of the same bashing of X, like the ole' "how is this possible without tracks" meme. Maybe he wasn't shooed, but more like he turned around and walked away due to insufficient banter. And then there was a lot of platitudinal X defense, which is also unfortunate.

This, to me, was a missed opportunity, no matter what your NLE of choice may be. I do think that the "use what's best" theme that Oliver is pushing is what a lot of X users have said from day 1. Lately, the tone has changed a bit, admittedly. For whatever reason, there's a lot less balance.

Choosing an NLE implies decisions about career/life/politics/lifestyle. So what's left over is typical red state/blue state standoffs, one "side" accusing the other of very similar actions wrapped in a personal belief system that may or may not line up with your needs and experiences, or with what the 'people-in-charge' are telling their constituents, meanwhile when it gets down to the issues, the constituents want the same thing, more or less.

So, one can scold folks for not believing in the 'Avid' way, but I would think that the 'Avid' way should stop criticizing folks for using X.

I think if the platitudes are out of the way, there are some very good ideas in the X design. From these, we can all learn something, no matter if you like to edit on X, or despise Apple as a company, or not. Context is everything, this is still the X or not debate forum.

And know I am just responding to your post, Walter, not speaking directly to you or commenting on any of your actions.

Jeremy

PS Can I write longer run-on sentences with more commas? I hope not.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 12, 2014 at 3:28:30 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "the door swings both ways."

I agree wholeheartedly. I have learned a lot more from people cheering their favorite NLE than booing their least favorite.


[Jeremy Garchow] "It seems that experienced people come in here, shoot down anyone who is trying something different, using new software successfully in professional environments, on real, public facing, money making jobs, almost to the point of not quite believing, or belittling any efforts where X was used, including a giant Hollywood movie."

"Those who say it can't be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."
James A. Baldwin


[Jeremy Garchow] "Lately, the tone has changed a bit, admittedly. For whatever reason, there's a lot less balance."

I think we'd be hard-pressed to find a more balanced view than Oliver's. Re-reading his original post, I am somewhat astonished that his point of view is controversial.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I think if the platitudes are out of the way, there are some very good ideas in the X design. From these, we can all learn something, no matter if you like to edit on X, or despise Apple as a company, or not. Context is everything, this is still the X or not debate forum. "

What I have learned over the last few years is that no matter what application I'm using, I miss some feature from a competing application.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 12, 2014 at 5:59:35 pm

[Walter Soyka] "What I have learned over the last few years is that no matter what application I'm using, I miss some feature from a competing application."

Oh my, yes.

Tim


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 8:37:31 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'm sympathetic to the argument that Avid has shown very little innovation lately, but I think it's hard to argue that Avid is in no way "superior" or "advanced.""

One of the workflows where I think AVID were well ahead of the curve was in stereoscopic. Obviously you can do this in other environments but I can't help feeling that AVID managed to own that space with their implementation, which in addition to its depth was extremely easy to use.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 8:47:39 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "One of the workflows where I think AVID were well ahead of the curve was in stereoscopic. "

Perhaps they spent too much time on 3D, which really didn't work out so well. Would you agree?

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 8:51:47 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Perhaps they spent too much time on 3D, which really didn't work out so well. Would you agree?"

I'm thrilled that 3D appears to have been the damp squib I always hoped it would be.

That doesn't take away from the fact the AVID provided an incredibly solid and easy-to-use workflow while the fad lasted. And that is surely to their credit. Like them or loathe them, they do actually provide solutions for high-end workflows that some others can't be bothered to cater for. I think you'd probably agree on that.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 7:11:53 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "damp squib"

I have no clue what this is! :-)


[Simon Ubsdell] "That doesn't take away from the fact the AVID provided an incredibly solid and easy-to-use workflow while the fad lasted."

If Avid had listened to it's users, it would have known not to chase this fad. A lot of valuable time and resources went after this "damp squib" (I think!) that Avid should not have wasted. What other requested features were put on the back-burner because of the 3D investment?


[Simon Ubsdell] " Like them or loathe them, they do actually provide solutions for high-end workflows that some others can't be bothered to cater for. I think you'd probably agree on that."

Yes, I do agree and it re-enforces some ideas that Avid is becoming a niche product for broadcast and film. And yes, that is a niche when looked at the entire landscape. And some of us will never need to go to that niche, or a niche (3D) of that niche. Don't get me wrong, it's a good and highly visible niche, but a niche all the same.

sw

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 7:25:59 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "[Simon Ubsdell] "damp squib"

I have no clue what this is! :-)"


damp squib - noun BRITISH - a situation or event which is much less impressive than expected.

The launch of FCP X is a good example of a damp squib ;-) Just kidding, sorry, couldn't help it.

[Scott Witthaus] "If Avid had listened to it's users, it would have known not to chase this fad. A lot of valuable time and resources went after this "damp squib" (I think!) that Avid should not have wasted. What other requested features were put on the back-burner because of the 3D investment?"

You are in danger of disregarding the fact that there have been some truly massive stereoscopic movies that have made gazillions of dollars. This being the case I can't really agree that it was inappropriate for AVID to have helped facilitate the workflow that made some of those movies possible.

Stereoscopic was a huge mistake - though it's maybe too early to call it a dead duck (another idiom for you). But it's surely a good thing that there are companies that are willing to put the effort into developing workflows that can generate massive revenue streams ... just as much as it's a good thing that there are companies that facilitate small shops to deliver more profitably.

[Scott Witthaus] "Yes, I do agree and it re-enforces some ideas that Avid is becoming a niche product for broadcast and film."

AVID have always serviced a niche and they always will for as long as they are around - their forays into the mass market have all been ineffective or disastrous. I'm just not sure I follow why we should be dismissing their products for that reason. Niches can be hugely profitable and provide employment for a surprising large number of people. Are you saying they shouldn't be catered for?

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 7:30:58 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "That doesn't take away from the fact the AVID provided an incredibly solid and easy-to-use workflow while the fad lasted."

No idea what Avid is doing better/worse/different, but I've done a few stereoscopic projects with FCP X over the last couple of years with Dashwood just fine. May not be perfect, maybe not the best/easiest option, but more than possible. And I'm pretty sure at just a fraction of the cost.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 7:36:51 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "I've done a few stereoscopic projects with FCP X over the last couple of years with Dashwood just fine. May not be perfect, maybe not the best/easiest option, but more than possible. And I'm pretty sure at just a fraction of the cost."

Dashwood Stereo3D Toolbox costs 520.66 of our English pounds and therefore quite a few more of your American dollars - 799, to be precise.

A monthly subscription to Media Composer currently runs at $49 per month.

The Media Composer workflow is seriously powerful and seamless - I would recommend you try it.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 8:11:00 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "A monthly subscription to Media Composer currently runs at $49 per month. "

Right. Never mind that I said "for years" and not "just weeks". And that the Avid subscription is... how old? :-D At the time you couldn't even get as much as an incremental update for Avid for that much, so it's rather a matter of perspective. Not sure how today's cost is in any way relevant to what I said.

But even if it had existed, I would have paid much more by the time of the second project either way. AND had an NLE that I'm not interested in working with otherwise on top of it. Don't see much of an advantage in that.

[Andrew Kimery] "If you are working on a Hollywood movie"

I'm not at the moment. Nor do I see that part of the industry as any sort of measure of my needs or that of more than 95+% of the entire market. Add those that actually need 3D and you're even easily in the area of what? 99+%? And the Dashwood plugin paid for itself on the first project, so I don't care either way. :)

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 8:15:33 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Right. Never mind that I said "for years" and not "just weeks". And that the Avid subscription is... how old? :-D At the time you couldn't even get as much as an incremental update for Avid for that much, so it's rather a matter of perspective. Not sure how today's cost is in any way relevant to what I said.

But even if it had existed, I would have paid much more by the time of the second project either way. AND had an NLE that I'm not interested in working with otherwise on top of it. Don't see much of an advantage in that."


I'm not entirely sure when the price became operative but quite a few years back now you were able to buy MC outright for $995 which is only marginally more expensive than the Dashwood plug-in - and you'd walk away with an industry standard NLE for your money in addition to being able to access the best stereoscopic workflow available. A decent enough deal, I'd have said.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 8:35:43 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "you were able to buy MC outright for $995"

Exactly. Additional money I neither needed to spend nor saw any point in spending. And I already had an "industry standard NLE", too, btw. One that I actually used. If buying an entirely new (foreign) software package that you'd need twice the time to get into for (at the time) one single project makes sense to you, great. Go for it. It sure didn't to me, not by a long-shot. I guess I'm just weird that way!

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 8:36:54 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Exactly. Additional money I neither needed to spend nor saw any point in spending. And I already had an "industry standard NLE", too, btw. One that I actually used. If buying an entirely new (foreign) software package that you'd need twice the time to get into for (at the time) one single project makes sense to you, great. Go for it. It sure didn't to me, not by a long-shot. I guess I'm just weird that way!"

I guess what you're saying here is that you haven't ever actually used Media Composer, is that right?

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 8:58:06 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I guess what you're saying here is that you haven't ever actually used Media Composer, is that right?"

Huh?? The relevance being?? :-)))

But very little at the time, yes. Imagine that! So are we down to straw-men and red-herrings now? Is the fact that it made no sense to me on any level at the time (nor today for that matter) so utterly inconceivable for you? Am I somehow insulting you personally with that or does that not fit into your world? Because I have no clue why we're even still debating this. I'm amazingly okay with my decision. Go figure. You want to do stereoscopic on Avid because any other solution is out of the question... be my guest. I actually don't care. Weird, huh?

Whatever.... feel free to continue with whatever (unidentifiable) agenda you're following...

- RK


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 12, 2014 at 10:42:53 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "But very little at the time, yes. Imagine that! So are we down to straw-men and red-herrings now? Is the fact that it made no sense to me on any level at the time (nor today for that matter) so utterly inconceivable for you?"

Thanks for clarifying the state of your knowledge of Media Composer - it's helpful to know exactly what it is in the light of the current discussion.

Here's why, expressed simply:

If Mr A says that X is better than Y, but then it transpires Mr A has little or no knowledge of Y, then Mr B is surely entitled to question the validity of Mr A's argument that X is better than Y. Yes, Mr A is employing an ad hominem argument, but it's a case of an entirely valid ad hominem argument. Mr A is not properly qualified to state that X is better than Y if he doesn't in fact have equal knowledge of both. Of course he can legitimately say that he prefers Y but that's something quite different.

You may be entirely correct in your conclusion that FCP X is superior to the other NLE's currently on the market, but if you are correct, then you're correct by accident rather than through actual knowledge. (If you are not saying that FCP X is superior, then I apologise for misrepresenting you.)

Oliver P. started this thread off by pointing out that each NLE has its strengths and weaknesses and each has a different appeal to different segments of the market, which seems to me a pretty reasonable position to have adopted. Moreover Oliver has I think been editing since before the days of DW Griffith and it is well known that he has taken the time to "dive deeply" (in Bill's phrase) into a wide range of editing systems.

It seems odd to me that those who shout the loudest about the superiority and uniqueness of FCP X are also those who have the least experience of NLE's not made or developed by Apple. FCP X enthusiasts with a wider knowledge of what else is out there tend to be far less strident and far more ready to accept that other options have equal worth.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Whatever.... feel free to continue with whatever (unidentifiable) agenda you're following..."

I really don't have an agenda, I'm afraid - but your suggestion that I do is of course a classic example of an ad hominem argument ;-)

For my part, I really don't have a preference among the top three NLE's currently on the market and will use (and have used) whichever is most suitable to the job at hand. Same with most of the professional applications I use, whether it's audio, or mograph, or VFX, or 3D - I let the context decide. And sometimes, of course, the client dictates what I should use which means my preference is not relevant.

I just don't see the point in trying to decide on the "superiority" of one application over another and then sticking with that through hell or high water. Learn as many of them as you can, keep learning, and keep revising your opinions as circumstances change, because what is true today will almost certainly be a lot less true a year from now.

The more perspectives through which you view the craft of editing, the better editor you become - and keeping abreast of all the latest developments across a range of editing systems is a great way of doing that.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 12, 2014 at 3:13:40 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "If Mr A says that X is better than Y"

Only that neither Mr. A, B, X, Y, Z, Delta or Gamma, whichever I'm supposed to be, ever made any such claim or judgment. You were the one that felt he needed to sell me on the idea that I could have found a much better solution for me with Avid. Although I have no idea how you could possibly think that you could even be the judge of that.

[Simon Ubsdell] "your conclusion that FCP X is superior to the other NLE's currently on the market"

Ditto. But feel free to quote anything along those lines to prove me wrong.

[Simon Ubsdell] "those who have the least experience of NLE's not made or developed by Apple"

Of course, not only did I learn AND own pretty much every major NLE over the last 20+ years (starting at PPro, Avid, then via Media100 [which I still have in a drawer here] to FCP somewhere around I believe v1.25 with a "Merlin" and Targa 2000 hardware also somewhere in-between), but I've also taught each at some point or another. So much for assumptions.

[Simon Ubsdell] "It seems odd to me that those who shout the loudest about the superiority and uniqueness of FCP X are also those who have the least experience of NLE's not made or developed by Apple."

Fascinating how that describes those that spend an inordinate amount of time castigating X and saying how useless it is, no? Or do you seriously think that those whining about it the loudest have actually ever used it in production? But again, feel free to quote anything I said to that effect. If anything, I judged FCP (be it 7 or X) to be the superior NLE FOR ME over others. Nothing more. If you want to twist that into something else merely to legitimize your claim that AVID is somehow superior (oh the irony) and imply I'm ignorant of Avid or my own needs for not using an MC instead of Dashwood via some abstruse budget quotes et al, oh well. May the hubris be with you.

[Simon Ubsdell] "I let the context decide."

Oh really? Funny how when I describe my doing the exact same, it's somehow my just being some mindless, inexperienced fanboy zealot not having a clue what he's talking about, incapable of making a decision that suits him best... IN CONTEXT. Thank god for double standards! :-D

- RK


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 12, 2014 at 3:20:39 pm

OK. I have misunderstood everything you have been saying.

I apologise unreservedly and sincerely.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 12, 2014 at 5:55:52 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I apologise unreservedly and sincerely."

I think that's the only answer possible in this situation.

Tim


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 8:16:56 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Right. Never mind that I said "for years" and not "just weeks". And that the Avid subscription is... how old? :-D At the time you couldn't even get as much as an incremental update for Avid for that much, so it's rather a matter of perspective. Not sure how today's cost is in any way relevant to what I said."

You said years ago and you used FCPX? So, in the last 3 years?

Dashwood - $799
FCPX - $299
TOTAL: $1,098

Avid: $999
TOTAL: $999

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 8:49:02 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "I'm not at the moment. Nor do I see that part of the industry as any sort of measure of my needs or that of more than 95+% of the entire market."

Right, but the discussion wasn't about the general needs of an industry that spans everything from $500 wedding videos to $300 million dollar films. The discussion was about Avid and the b'cast and film niche it primarily serves.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 7:42:54 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "AVID have always serviced a niche and they always will for as long as they are around - their forays into the mass market have all been ineffective or disastrous."

I agree that Avid has been in the b'cast and film niche almost exclusively, and over 40 3D films have been released in the US so far this year so it makes since for Avid to cater to their niche.


[Robin S. Kurz] " And I'm pretty sure at just a fraction of the cost."
If you are working on a Hollywood movie the cost between NLE's these days is totally insignificant. Data storage alone is going to dwarf the cost of the NLE and the computer(s) it runs on.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 7:49:28 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "over 40 3D films have been released in the US so far this year so it makes since for Avid to cater to their niche."

Had no idea it was so many - that's still a heck of a lot of movies and all of them virtually by definition very big budget. Makes total sense to be servicing the needs of that market.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 8:00:22 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Had no idea it was so many - that's still a heck of a lot of movies and all of them virtually by definition very big budget. Makes total sense to be servicing the needs of that market."

I didn't either, but I prefer to see the 2D versions of movies (wearing 3D glasses over my normal glasses kinda sucks). It seems like almost any decent sized (by Hollywood standards) action or animated movie gets a 3D version released too.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 8:13:26 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "It seems like almost any decent sized (by Hollywood standards) action or animated movie gets a 3D version released too."

I believe the Chinese market is also much bigger for Stereo3D, so there are films that go 3D even though they are distributed in the US in 2D. Of course, those are usually a post process. However, the Chinese theme park business is strong and that's another area for Stereo3D, outside of the typical "Hollywood" niche.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 3:20:54 pm

[Oliver Peters] "3. No NLE is that difficult to learn."

I think this might to too general of a statement.
Break it down to a specific task.
Let's say removing background noise. Would that be easier in X or AVID for a student new to editing?


[Oliver Peters] "4. The experience of folks in major markets (like LA or NY) at least, is that jobs where Media Composer is used often paid more than jobs where FCP “legacy” was used. So that would tend to reinforce why someone should stay with Media Composer skills."

Yes, they SHOULD stay with those skills, the point some where making is that how long will they be able to.
You are saying that corps have to pay more to employees with AVID
Brother, you just made the argument why corporations will see X as a way to drive down cost.
The day rate going down across the board is obviously a bad thing for editors.
Many decision makers in the corporate halls are too clueless about X to figure this out right now but in the not too distant future, they will.

I'm fine with them staying clues myself. I want the rate to stay as high as possible.

We all know the deal, the harder something is to do the more money you get paid to do it.




[Oliver Peters] "6. FCP X is not easier for young folks nor harder for old folks to pick up on. "

There are people who teach young folks for a living on here that say the opposite. I'm going to go with their opinion since that's what they do every day. I don't teach kids video editing for a living.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 9:19:53 pm

[tony west] "Brother, you just made the argument why corporations will see X as a way to drive down cost.
The day rate going down across the board is obviously a bad thing for editors.
Many decision makers in the corporate halls are too clueless about X to figure this out right now but in the not too distant future, they will."


Well put and spot on. Many know too well that in the end, like it or not, the accountants make more decisions far more often than they should, especially in larger companies. A scenario in which Avid of all NLEs is by far the most likely to lose given time imho. They are already. At least at the various media academies and universities that I teach or taught at, all had Avid classes at a ratio of about 5:1 (probably even worse) in favor of various other NLEs... if they even offered it at all.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 11:48:02 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Many know too well that in the end, like it or not, the accountants make more decisions far more often than they should"

Indeed Robin


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 9:55:46 pm

[tony west] "Let's say removing background noise. Would that be easier in X or AVID for a student new to editing?"

I would not do it in either NLE. And what does that have to do with learning difficulty?

[tony west] "You are saying that corps have to pay more to employees with AVID"

Not corporations, but TV production companies and film production companies, since that specific to the LA market.

[tony west] "Brother, you just made the argument why corporations will see X as a way to drive down cost."

Far too simplistic of a point-of-view. The same argument could be made in favor of Adobe CC on subscription, because the accounting works out better for the bean counters. Especially since you get the whole Adobe suite.

[tony west] "There are people who teach young folks for a living on here that say the opposite."

As do I and have done for years. I stand by my experience. I'm teaching film students with very specific goals in mind. That's a lot different than general software instruction on how to use an editing application. I can and have brought students up to speed with all manner of NLEs in the same amount of time.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 10:14:40 pm

[Oliver Peters] "[tony west] "Let's say removing background noise. Would that be easier in X or AVID for a student new to editing?"

I would not do it in either NLE. And what does that have to do with learning difficulty?"


I didn't ask you what you wold do, I asked about a student. And it has everything to do with it.

X tells you when there is a problem with audio. A student may put down an audio track and think it's fine
but then get alerted that it's too low. They just learned something right there that the software taught them.
I don't recall the others doing that.

[Oliver Peters] "Not corporations, but TV production companies "

Yeah, the same thing man, big corps own TV stations.

[Oliver Peters] "The same argument could be made in favor of Adobe CC on subscription, because the accounting works out better for the bean counters. Especially since you get the whole Adobe suite."

It's not cheaper than X and at local stations reporters who have to cut wouldn't use the suite anyway. Some don't even want to do the cutting they are doing.



[Oliver Peters] "I can and have brought students up to speed with all manner of NLEs in the same amount of time."


That's hard to believe right there.

I remember when X first came out and people were complaining about it missing all those pages of Preferences that legend had. That's less to teach right there. Unless you skip over that.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 10:43:37 pm

[tony west] "X tells you when there is a problem with audio. A student may put down an audio track and think it's fine but then get alerted that it's too low. They just learned something right there that the software taught them. I don't recall the others doing that."

Or you could actually teach them to listen and evaluate and understand the meters. Those are the sort of automatics that I avoid because they suck. They aren't good and you have no idea what the software is actually doing. If I'm teaching concepts, which is what I do in a film class, I don't want them taking a stupid shortcut that will get them in trouble down the road on a real job.

So I'll toss one back at you. What about CALM compliance? No way to deal with that in X or really MC for than matter. OTOH, Premiere has you covered.

[tony west] "Yeah, the same thing man, big corps own TV stations."

Again, that's not what I was talking about. I was specifically referring to TV show production companies, who are the ones that hire freelance talent. That's primarily where you get paid more for knowing Avid. Admittedly those are often union gigs and union gigs in LA tend to pay more than non-union, though that's not universally true. If we are talking about ABC, NBC, etc. you simply won't get the job if you don't know the NLE they use. Not a question of more or less pay.

[tony west] "That's hard to believe right there. "

I've been doing it since Avid came out and have successfully trained students on a wide range of linear and nonlinear edit systems for decades. So believe or don't believe it.

Regarding preferences... I don't skip it, but I do simplify it by boiling it down to what I want them to use based on the tutorial media I'm providing. FCP "legacy" format prefs were very daunting because of all the variations introduced by outboard IO hardware. By comparison, that same situation was never the case with Media Composer and starting a new project there has always been dirt simple.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 11:56:21 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Or you could actually teach them to listen and evaluate and understand the meters. "

That's obvious, you are trying to avoid the question I asked you.

I asked you about teaching the the software not about your own opinion about how well it works.


[Oliver Peters] "Those are the sort of automatics that I avoid because they suck."

So you would teach your students "kids just skip over that part of the software because I think it sucks"

hahahah that's silly




[Oliver Peters] "'ve been doing it since Avid came out and have successfully trained students on a wide range of linear and nonlinear edit systems for decades. So believe or don't believe it."

How many classes a week do you teach?

Are you a full time instructor or a person that teaches a class a couple of times a year?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 12:05:05 am

[tony west] "I asked you about teaching the the software not about your own opinion about how well it works."

Ok, then I simply don't understand what you are getting at. I don't teach about cleaning up bad audio in the limited time that I have in these workshops as they are followed by a separate audio post program by another instructor. I know I'm not answering anything, so maybe restate the question, as I'm simply not getting it. If I were to teach about audio clean-up it would only be with Premiere Pro in conjunction with Audition.

[tony west] "So you would teach your students "kids just skip over that part of the software because I think it sucks""

No, I point them in the direction of software that's better.

[tony west] "Are you a full time instructor or a person that teaches a class a couple of times a year?"

The film students are a once-a-year three-week-long workshop. In addition, I also periodically work with them as a mentor when the program gets a real project, like a feature film. I do contracted instruction from time to time, such as with a local TV station staff. I have turned down several full time and adjunct positions over the years.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 12:33:38 am

[Oliver Peters] "I simply don't understand what you are getting at. "

Hummmm

I didn't know it was that complicated.

I was asking you which program you thought a first time student with no previous background in editing would pick up faster. X or AVID


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 12:46:03 am

[tony west] "I was asking you which program you thought a first time student with no previous background in editing would pick up faster. X or AVID"

I already answered that in the original post. With proper instruction, it would be the same. Probably 50% of the class would be faster on one and 50% on the other. There are a lot of variables, like right-brain/left-brain, prior editing software experience, and so on.

Given no instruction whatsoever - and no prior knowledge of how to use any editing software - then probably X. However, you'd miss most of the nuances and probably wouldn't be a good editor, except for rough-cutting cat videos for YouTube ;-)

The year that I taught X (prior to Libraries), the only student who really loved it was a lady who had previously only used Microsoft MovieMaker. You also have to note that unlike comments a lot of others toss out here, more than half of these students have only been exposed to PCs as their main computers and not Macs. Quite frankly, computer literacy among college students is getting worse and not better, in my experience. You can thank iPhones and video games for that. I actually had papers submitted that were typed on an iPhone! And no, they were not good. So there's also the uphill challenge of whether or not they know common computer short-cuts and/or Mac versus Windows.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 1:19:33 am

[Oliver Peters] " Probably 50% of the class would be faster on one and 50% on the other"



I find that interesting given the knock on X when it first came out was that it was "toy looking"

To me that translates into easy Toy looking

But according to you it's more complicated looking to half the people as the AVID UI

I can't imagine someone being confused by the X UI but not confused by AVID

I just can't wrap my head around that.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 1:46:36 am

[tony west] "I find that interesting given the knock on X when it first came out was that it was "toy looking"
To me that translates into easy Toy looking "


Remember that if you've never dealt with editing software before or even something like After Effects, then all software looks completely daunting at the start. One of the issues that frustrated students was the mechanics of the magnetic timeline and the generally "rubberyness" of how clips react when you move them around.

FWIW - my comparison of students is not in the same year. I haven't taken the same class through X and then MC or anything else. I'm comparing the experience of one year with that of anything.

This is also a class that's taking a yearlong "hands on" film curriculum, so not all want to be (or would be good at being) editors. Some are better cinematographers and some are born to be in craft service. Out of 40-60 students, you might have a handful that actually seem to have the chops to become talented editors.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 6:26:17 am

[Oliver Peters] "Remember that if you've never dealt with editing software before or even something like After Effects, then all software looks completely daunting at the start."

To a certain extent.

A client was watching me cut on X one day.

A few days later he showed up with his laptop and had bought PrP (he is a pc guy)
He had no experience editing at all and is close to retirement in a totally different field. He said he want to make some home videos as a hobby.

He opened up PrP and had this look on his face

Totally lost.

I told him that program may be a little much for his needs and it was going to take him some time to learn it. He closed it up and I don't has opened it since.

I can't be for sure, but I think looking at X he thought, that looks like fun and I want to try it.

Oh well.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 1:50:58 am

PS: I think it boils down to tracks versus trackless. The "tracks model" makes more sense to some people, while "trackless model" makes more sense to others. I will say that kids who had prior exposure to Premiere or FCP "legacy" through a high school video class or because they pirated the software, seem to have more issues with X. This would mimic what we see with professionals.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 10:45:51 pm

[Oliver Peters] "[tony west] "Let's say removing background noise. Would that be easier in X or AVID for a student new to editing?"

I would not do it in either NLE. And what does that have to do with learning difficulty?"


Completely agree.

[Oliver Peters] "[tony west] "Brother, you just made the argument why corporations will see X as a way to drive down cost."

Far too simplistic of a point-of-view. The same argument could be made in favor of Adobe CC on subscription, because the accounting works out better for the bean counters. Especially since you get the whole Adobe suite."


Going to disagree here, any subscription model can be expensive over the long term, especially when there is no off ramp. Lack of any clear strategy when exiting any subscription model can be a huge cost. I, for one, am not willing to play with matches.
;-)

When life give me lemons there are two ways to look at it: A glass of lemonade or a gas guzzling clunker waiting to fall apart on me at any given moment. Much prefer the lemonade.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 11:06:50 pm

[David Mathis] "Going to disagree here, any subscription model can be expensive over the long term, especially when there is no off ramp. Lack of any clear strategy when exiting any subscription model can be a huge cost. I, for one, am not willing to play with matches."

You have to look at it from the corporate POV. When you buy software as a small owner, you might view it as an asset or capital expense. For a larger corporation or educational institution there is no asset value. If you sell the company, no one cares how many seats of FCP X you might own. There is also no big concern about an off-ramp.

By shifting to subscription, it becomes a monthly expense, like other utility bills. That has significance for tax purposes, too. Also when you look at the body of what's covered by a CC subscription, it becomes quite attractive for a corporate environment, especially if they have photo, web and print needs. On top of that, an enterprise account hands the keys over to the IT department, which is also a plus for many companies.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 12:33:24 am

I was coming from an independent (hobbyist) perspective and should have clarified that in my original post. I do agree with the corporate point of view.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 11:14:32 pm

[tony west] "Yeah, the same thing man, big corps own TV stations."

I don't think Oliver is talking about TV stations. I think he's talking about production companies like Electus, Endemol, Bunim-Murray, etc.,. in major markets. In my experience with this, typically Avid gigs were better paying gigs because they were bigger budget productions all around, the workflow better fit Avid (multi-editor, thousands of hours of footage, etc.,) and they were looking to hire more experienced editors and the more experienced editors pretty much all know Avid.

This isn't always the case (ex. Bunim-Murray used to run FCP Legend before they switched back to Avid) but it's a pretty accurate rule of thumb to go by. I know of another Reality TV-centric facility in LA that, AFAIK, was always FCP and were very optimistic about X but recently switched over to Avid. Why? Can't say for sure but I'm trying to have lunch w/someone over there and pick their brain about the decision making process.

When I moved to LA 10 years ago FCP Legend jobs were pretty few and far between and 99/100 always on low budget projects. By the time FCP 7 rolled out the application had gained much more acceptance and you could earn an okay living only using FCP. Still, not as many (nor as high paying) gigs as Avid but a much better situation than in the FCP 3/4 days. FCP Legend certainly had a big price advantage when it was only $999 and even Avids were $60,000 and up (which explains it's rapid growth on lower budget projects), but these days the price difference between the NLE's isn't very significant. It should go w/o saying that if Apple would've released FCP 8 instead of FCP X we'd be having a very different conversation about NLEs right now.


[Oliver Peters] " Admittedly those are often union gigs and union gigs in LA tend to pay more than non-union, though that's not universally true. "

FWIW scripted programing is pretty much all union and unscripted programming is pretty much all non-union.


[David Mathis] "Going to disagree here, any subscription model can be expensive over the long term, especially when there is no off ramp. Lack of any clear strategy when exiting any subscription model can be a huge cost. I, for one, am not willing to play with matches."

There is rarely any long term ownership for the companies Oliver is talking about. Everything from cameras to office space to NLEs are only rented for the duration of the project.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 12:03:49 am

[Andrew Kimery] "I don't think Oliver is talking about TV stations. I think he's talking about production companies like Electus, Endemol, Bunim-Murray, etc.,"

I got you

I was talking about TV stations because there are way more of them out there


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 9, 2014 at 11:59:31 pm

Just for clarification David, I'm not saying removing background in X is better than using RX 4

That's a distraction argument.

The question on the table was which NLE is easier to learn.

Then I picked a topic to narrow it down.

Weather it's good or not is irrelevant to the question on the table. Which one is easier to learn.

It's hands down X


Return to posts index

Justin Crowell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 4:40:31 am

And I think Oliver's point was that the noise removal in FCP X may be easy to teach, but it's useless to do so because of how weak it is...so thats not much of a point in the X teachability direction...

Editor, Producer, DP
JustinCrowell.com


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 5:58:35 am

[Justin Crowell] "And I think Oliver's point was that the noise removal in FCP X may be easy to teach"

But he didn't say it was easy to teach

[Justin Crowell] "because of how weak it is.."

but it isn't all that weak either


Return to posts index

Justin Crowell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 6:06:02 am

Pardon me, I was unclear: you're saying it's easy to learn, and using noise removal as an example. Oliver seems to be saying that that is besides the point; pointing out functionality that's easy to learn because it's overly simplified to the point of being generally unuseable isn't a major tick-box in the easy to learn category. Oliver also seems to be claiming that it's ease-of-use is actually totally deceptive: people new to audio will think they've done themselves a service, when they've probably introduced some bad artifacting.

I was an audio editor in a previous life, and I'll do all I can to avoid the noise-removal switch in FCPX. More often than not, it worsens the problem.

Editor, Producer, DP
JustinCrowell.com


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 6:42:21 am

[Justin Crowell] " being generally unuseable"

I don't know where you are getting that. It's not unusable at all.

First of all, when you are working with a top end crew you are not dealing with horrible audio anyway.
You have a good sound man that tells you when the sound is clear. The director is standing there with an fib off the mixer listing himself and if I'm shooing I'm also listing.

That's 3 people hearing the sound in the field. On the kind of jobs I do all you are doing is tweaking at best.

If I were to post 10 sound samples, some I did in RX 4 and some in X are you telling me you could pick all 10 out?

I don't believe you could.


Return to posts index

Justin Crowell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 6:55:43 am

That's fine, but that's not really how noise removal is tested. It's fine for when it's not stressed--but the FCP X version really breaks down where I need to do specific things like take noise prints (for things like crowd noise), remove hums that are fairly broad spectrum, and remove audio problems of shorter duration. It's nice that you have the opportunity to control all of the material that you work with, but I don't do most of my shooting, and what I'm delivered is what I'm delivered.

Editor, Producer, DP
JustinCrowell.com


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 1:16:04 pm

[Justin Crowell] "what I'm delivered is what I'm delivered.
"


I totally get that, and I'm often in the same boat. I just find that when I'm delivered something from a higher budget the sound is very good and what I'm having to do with it is limited. That's why we hired the best person in the market to do audio. Its when they cut back and tell the shooter to go out one man band style and they are out there just trying to do the best they can when there are problems.

Every situation is different. I do more live television than anything and time becomes a factor. Somebody runs into a locker room and shoots an interview that needs to be turned around and on the air in minutes.
Do I not do anything with the audio because I don't have time to get into RX or fix it the best I can for the time I'm allowed?
I would teach students both. At lest I'm glad I can do both, because sometimes I have to.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 3:17:41 pm

[Justin Crowell] "but the FCP X version really breaks down where I need to do specific things like take noise prints (for things like crowd noise), remove hums that are fairly broad spectrum, and remove audio problems of shorter duration."

Considering the exponentially broader spectrum of editors that FCP X caters to compared to others, those tools are more than sufficient for a lot of them, often not having had anything of the sorts before, and certainly nothing so simple. And yes, that's in fact a good thing. Because they're still very effective for many situations nonetheless. I don't see anyone here claiming FCP X to be everything to everyone, especially in terms of audio (which goes for ANY NLE for that matter). To lump in every possible more higher-end and demanding situation where those automatic tools AREN'T sufficient, to then seemingly point to them as some sort of proof how useless they are as a whole, is rather injudicious to say the least. We're (i.e. I am) talking about beginners here. I excluded the burdened-by-previous-NLE quite clearly, but I'm not surprised others bring them back in to tip the scale in terms of learnability to facilitate their position. ;)

There are still MANY situations where using those one-click-filters (with adjustments) is still a helluva lot better than doing nothing at all. And yes, they're mainly geared towards those that have no clue what a compressor etc. is or how to use it, not the ones that DO. I see no shame in that. Quite the opposite.

I for one teach the tools and show what they can and can't do and always tell students to learn where the limitations are and decide for themselves what works for them and what not. Everything else can and will be sent to a DAW accordingly. But they ARE in fact a brilliant entry into basic audio sweetening, since learning what it is those automatic tools actually do (when explained and not just switched on) is a huge help for later audio work. They see, hear and understand the basics of compressors, noise gates, notch filters etc. do, should they prefer to do it themselves more manually. All without the confusion of endless buttons and sliders. But I can even call on those if I want to go that deep, since each is of course available in form of AU filters also. If you're unable to squeeze useful information out of even the most simple function to both your and your students' advantage, then you're clearly doing it wrong and might consider not teaching at all... and apparently that's the problem some people are having.

I just love the obvious double-standard of some in that some things that can't be done directly with X (in general) are cherry-picked as an example of how insufficient it is ("You need external apps!") in comparison to others. But anything that can't be done well in another or ALL other NLEs, well, that's fine. Cause, you know, they're not FCP. In their case it's suddenly the truly professional way to do things! :D

- RK


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 1:19:46 pm

For me, the key issue is time in these editing classes. I typically split the class into 2 sessions - morning and afternoon. So with each group, I have about 16-20 hours over the course of 2 weeks of lab time to get a class for no knowledge to a low level of proficiency. There are plenty of things I skip. The second part is that this is a film program designed around the structure of film workflow. So things like sound design and dialogue clean up fall to the audio post instructor and are focused on Pro Tools.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 10, 2014 at 2:50:10 pm

Man, I am not sure why this thread was even started, unless Oliver was bored. ;-)

I have known Oliver for a while now and respect the hell out of him. But of course, being the PITA I have been called every now and again, I have a couple alternative viewpoints!


[Oliver Peters] "1. There is nothing that says FCP X or Media Composer or Premiere Pro are any more innovative, superior or advanced than the other tools."

I don't understand this. If you are saying they all are the same except for the tools, then the product with the best tools for a workflow is superior. For example, I find X data management, organization and effects handling (to name a few) far superior to MC. Therefore X is the superior product for me. You have to have some criteria to judge a product on. It's like saying "if you take away the engine, systems, and drivetrain, there is no difference between a Ferarri and a Yugo. They are pretty much the same". For others MC and Premiere are superior based on their particular criteria. Don't get me wrong, I have made a ton of money cutting on MC, XpressPro, DS, Symphony and such but for me, right now, X is a superior product based on my criteria.


[Oliver Peters] "2. Many “film” editors that you guys like to malign - who are heavy Avid users - also use other software when not at work."

Yes, but they would rather not, unless you are talking about hobby and home stuff. Having lived through the transition of Softimage|DS to Avid|DS the superior product (see # 1 above), DS, was much maligned by Avid editors because "it wasn't like an MC and they didn't want to learn it". Trust me, I saw it first hand. Suits at Avid picked up on that and let DS wander and die a slow death. Times have changed, for sure, and Avid editors MUST know other platforms (it's easier that they are all so cheap or free), but the reputation of Avid editors being smug in their comfort zone has some validity (I was one of those "smug" editors and turned my nose up at FCP when it first came out).

Until FCP5 came out, or there about, Avid as a company carried itself with a certain amount of corporate arrogance that translated down to upgrades, pricing and customer service. IMO (which I have stated directly to Avid folks), they felt that they were the only game in town, had Hollywood and you had to pay them to play with them. Whoops, my my, have times changed. Even when X was released (while Avid was losing money quarter after quarter) they went back to "well, if you're a professional you have to work with us" attitude. Obviously Avid's definition of professional is limited to their base. If you ignore history it's bound to repeat itself.


[Oliver Peters] "4. The experience of folks in major markets (like LA or NY) at least, is that jobs where Media Composer is used often paid more than jobs where FCP “legacy” was used. So that would tend to reinforce why someone should stay with Media Composer skills"

If you want to live and work in those markets, which could be considered "niche" when looking at the entire visual storytelling landscape. For example, I would cut my ear off rather than cut reality TV in a major market. That's just my choice.


[Oliver Peters] "5. Media Composer continues to be dominant in film and TV work because many contracts require Media Composer project files as a deliverable. This includes all working versions and not just the final sequence. So it’s not merely a matter of converting the final sequence and delivering that."

See above.

[Oliver Peters] "6. FCP X is not easier for young folks nor harder for old folks to pick up on. In the circle of folks I know, it’s more graybeards who are running FCP X than young folks. I see just as many young folks gravitate to Premiere Pro as I do to FCP X. This includes younger editors and college students."

I see the opposite with the 100 students I teach each year. New students, who have no previous editorial background, pick up X much faster than Legacy. I am two years into teaching X exclusively and it's just amazing how X makes sense to them where Legacy seemed not to. However, I don't think it has to do with age, rather the fact that there are no old habits to break. And I see more students breaking towards X versus PP when given the choice, which we do (I do only teach X in the lab, however).


[Oliver Peters] "Speed as an editor is a valued asset by clients. Speed comes in part when the software gets out of the way. This comes through muscle memory and intuitive knowledge of the software. That also makes you a more creative editor. If you are strong at Media Composer - or FCP 7 and Premiere is thus the easiest transition - why should you change to something else, unless it’s costing you business?"

I was fast as hell on EMC too, but switched to Avid when it came along. Why not look outside the box that something that can perhaps make you faster? If you are using MC in a non-broadcast or major market and you don't have to have certain deliverables (corporate, educational, web-based markets for example), why wouldn't you look into something else? The attitude of "keep your head in the sand and keep telling yourself MC is better" is on that has been around for a long time and I just don't get it.


[Oliver Peters] "In the end, it depends on what’s best for your business, your market, your clientele and your own style."

Agree! This is all you had to say right up front! :-)

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 2:45:39 am
Last Edited By Brett Sherman on Nov 11, 2014 at 2:46:12 am

I have to agree with you here. I just don't get this thread. Usually I find Oliver's posts insightful. Not this one.

I think there is a bit of market myopia here. Yes, I can see in the feature film world why it doesn't make that much difference between the products and Avid is a very good feature film editor. I have never questioned that because I don't know anything about feature film editing.

I'm not in that market though. I do quick turnaround, documentary-style editing. Which is very much similar to news editing. In these markets there are distinct advantages to FCP X. Could I use another editing program? Of course, and I have. Media 100. Vegas. Avid (Xpress Pro actually). FCP legacy. But I find FCP X is just the most efficient for what I do. I'm not sure why Oliver thinks otherwise.

I also think there's a bit of a straw man here. Who exactly is saying the other programs stink? If anything, I've heard a lot more of the opposite. And I don't go on Premiere or Avid forums to tell them there is absolutely nothing special about their software.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 3:26:35 am

[Brett Sherman] " Who exactly is saying the other programs stink? If anything, I've heard a lot more of the opposite.

I think think there is a lot of confirmation bias where one side always things the other side is acting worse. There are insults that call FCP X a toy and there are insults that non-FCP X users avoid FCP X because they fear change and/or are unable to adapt to new situations which will ultimately be their downfall. Bill's already said twice recently that he worries that the U.S. is "falling behind" the rest of the world when it comes to FCP X adaption which I assume means if you use anything other than FCP X you're doomed to failure. Not exactly an endorsement for the other NLEs or the people that choose to use them. ;)


And I don't go on Premiere or Avid forums to tell them there is absolutely nothing special about their software."


This isn't a FCP X forum. It's a forum to discuss NLEs. "FCP X or Not" is just a snappier title than "FCP X or FCP 7 or Avid MC or Adobe Premiere or Sony Vegas or Lightworks or Resolve?"


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 11:50:43 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "
I think think there is a lot of confirmation bias where one side always things the other side is acting worse."


That's why I said "if anything", meaning either way there is a lot more complaining about "offensive" posts than actual "offensive" posts (I'm not sure I can identify a single one.) We all just need to chill out.

[Andrew Kimery] "I assume means if you use anything other than FCP X you're doomed to failure"

I think that's part of the problem here. I don't "assume" it means that at all.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 11:03:34 am
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on Nov 11, 2014 at 11:08:29 am

[Brett Sherman] "I find FCP X is just the most efficient for what I do. I'm not sure why Oliver thinks otherwise."

Surely he didn't say that, though. What he clearly said was: "In the end, it depends on what’s best for your business, your market, your clientele and your own style." And that's hardly contentious.

I think though there is a trend here to try and imply (if not state outright) that there is something exceptional about FCP X that sets it apart from the competition.

Oddly this seems to be claimed the most loudly by a few who don't actually seem to have much, if any, experience of its competitors.

The fact is surely that every NLE has its weaknesses and each one has its strengths and that therefore they are each exceptional in their way.

Surely no-one can really argue that if you need a solid multi-user environment, Media Composer is still well ahead of the field. Similarly if you need integration with the industry standard for motion graphics, it doesn't get any better than Premiere. And of course, there are advantages to using FCP X that have been extensively rehearsed here over the years.

Surely very few people are still arguing that FCP X doesn't have a proven place right up there up among the other top NLE offerings. I'm am pretty certain that Oliver didn't try to suggest that FCP X isn't a great fit for your workflow, or did I miss that bit?

There's been a lot of discussion of the Honda spot - and clearly FCP X was ideally suited to that job. On the other hand, if it had been a stereoscopic job (yes, they still exist!), it's clear that by far the best choice would have been Media Composer.

The suitability of an NLE for one type of job doesn't necessarily entail its being ideal for every type of job - it seems almost too obvious to state this.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 11, 2014 at 5:57:07 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "[Brett Sherman] "I find FCP X is just the most efficient for what I do. I'm not sure why Oliver thinks otherwise."
Surely he didn't say that, though. What he clearly said was: "In the end, it depends on what’s best for your business, your market, your clientele and your own style." And that's hardly contentious."


Just to reiterate, I started by saying that I didn't believe one single NLE was any more innovative than the other. They all have strong innovation that each company can point to. For each editor it comes down to what they like and what fits their style.

For the record, I've cut nearly everything I've worked on (where I had the choice) with X, since right after it was released. There's a lot I like about it, however, I still find myself needing to jump to other NLEs from time to time because X falls short for some reason or another. Or I can get 80% of the way there, but need that extra 20% from another NLE. Not everyone has those needs and I get that. But I also see that my use of X is the exception.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 12, 2014 at 12:12:04 pm

See what you started, Oliver? :-)

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 12, 2014 at 12:14:57 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "See what you started, Oliver? :-)"

Well, you can't say it hasn't been a lively discussion ;-)

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 12, 2014 at 1:24:54 pm

[Oliver Peters] "But I also see that my use of X is the exception.
"


Yup. X is simply my "go-to" editor right now. I rarely have the thought of "gee, can I do this job in X". I just do it. The software has gotten so natural and fast for me that moving to another platform is an uncomfortable thought (Lord help me, I may have a Premiere job in the next few weeks...shudder). X and Resolve are the two platforms I find superior based on my criteria and workflow. YMMV based on yours.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 12, 2014 at 1:37:38 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Surely he didn't say that, though."

Fair point. I did misread his point on speed a bit. I read it as saying you could be equally fast with any editing program. Which I do not believe is true at all. So my apologies for that.

[Simon Ubsdell] "I think though there is a trend here to try and imply (if not state outright) that there is something exceptional about FCP X that sets it apart from the competition."

Number 1. I don't think anyone is stating this outright. Number 2, I believe the implication is in the interpretation, not in what is being said. Number 3, if that's someone's opinion, so what. Why are we trying to limit discussion here? There are people who post here that think Premiere is exceptional. I have no problem with them.

It's also ironic in your post you just stated things that make Media Composer exceptional, but yet somehow are saying it's out of bound to do the same for FCP X. The difference between saying elements of FCP X are exceptional (as you seem to agree with) versus saying the entire editing application is exceptional is sort of silly to attempt to sort out. FCP X IS exceptional with the timeline (meaning no other editing program uses the same paradigm). What is the point of hashing this out? And why is there so much sensitivity about this?

If you please tell me what I'm allowed to say it would be much easier. :)


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 12, 2014 at 2:05:44 pm

[Brett Sherman] "Why are we trying to limit discussion here?"

I absolutely don't want to limit discussion and would fight to the death for the freedom for anyone to express whatever opinion they like as loudly as they choose.

It seemed to me that Oliver's post was being shouted down in a manner that didn't seem to me to be reasonable - and by those whose credentials to shout it down (I know this is presumptuous to say) seemed to me to be not quite as solid as they might be given how loud they were shouting.

Of course, shouting is what makes this forum such an entertaining place to visit - and Tim should be encouraging it wherever possible ... as long as it remains on the right side of civility, obviously.

I don't think I disagree with you at all, but I do sense that there are a tiny few with some quite loud voices who would like to limit what it's permissible to say about FCP X. Though of course I could be completely wrong about that and am very happy to admit to it if that's the case and apologise accordingly.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 12, 2014 at 6:26:37 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Of course, shouting is what makes this forum such an entertaining place to visit - and Tim should be encouraging it wherever possible ... as long as it remains on the right side of civility, obviously.

I don't think I disagree with you at all, but I do sense that there are a tiny few with some quite loud voices who would like to limit what it's permissible to say about FCP X. Though of course I could be completely wrong about that and am very happy to admit to it if that's the case and apologise accordingly."


Since I'm quite likely one of those you feel to be a "quite loud voice" in this arena, let me suggest something.

When we compare NLEs here - I think we fall into two distinct modes. Comparing the OVERALL utility of the software for most tasks - and comparing the SPECIFIC utility of programs for a targeted task.

If someone says that Media Composer is "better" - they could well be speaking about a specific thing - say multi-user collaborative workflows - and so it's a very viable position. But if the reader is processing the idea in the OVERALL mode, there's a problem isn't there?

Because is Media Composer, as superb a tool as it is, actually "better" in all areas? Of course not. On last nights FCPVUG, Mike Matzdorff did a very specific comparison of keystroking for a common change in MC and compared it to the same change in X. He made crystal clear that specific process was much, much simple in X compared to MC.

So how much should we rely on SPECIFICS, when judging OVERALL superiority.

I've noticed that when I get excited about something like how X has a database bolted inside it, and therefore that makes it "better" as a software program. I get tons of pushback about how other software programs ALSO have database capabilities. Everyone switches to defending the OVERALL mode - when I was addressing the SPECIFIC of how the database functions in X.

I suspect this is all partially the effect of the forum title.

X constantly has to play defense here. It plays offense elsewhere and in those places, we hardly ever waste the time we do here on these types of silly "old dog" questions.

There's simply a world of X editors out there who understand it's value.

As there are in the worlds of Premier and AVID editors as well. (See, I had to go on defense there, to make sure I was "inclusive" or people would have spun that to me arguing - again! - that X is "better overall" - it really is tiring to always have to constantly play defense)

I will put it out there, however, that it seems that in this corner of the internet, X has to be "as good" as AVID or PREMIER on "their" terms. Yet nobody ever demands AVID or PREMIER have to be "as good" as X on X's terms.

That's something to think about. Perhaps.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 12, 2014 at 6:39:05 pm

[Bill Davis] "I will put it out there, however, that it seems that in this corner of the internet, X has to be "as good" as AVID or PREMIER on "their" terms. Yet nobody ever demands AVID or PREMIER have to be "as good" as X on X's terms."

I will perhaps surprise you, Bill, by agreeing with everything you've said there. Almost.

The only thing that I wish could happen is that we could simply dispense with the whole "better/as good as" rigmarole and simply celebrate the different ways in which different applications deliver interesting and worthwhile solutions.

I guess that would mean closing down this forum, so maybe that's not such a good idea.

By the way, I really don't hold a candle for Media Composer despite having somehow been cornered into defending it - frankly I think it should be a lot better than it is and I think that the folks at AVID still don't get it. On the other hand, they certainly do by and large deliver the product that their customers want, which in its own way has to be a good thing. If no software vendor delivered what customers thought they wanted but only what they thought they needed, I'm not sure the world would necessarily be a better place.

I would just like to say that if you're looking for exciting innovation, the guys at Adobe are positively scorching up the ground in the pace of development of Premiere and that too is something that needs celebrating from time to time.

Let's all try and understand what's great about FCP X (and there's plenty to like, I'll be the first to admit), but let's try not to do it in the context of trashing the competition. At least that's what I'll continue to try to do, but I should probably absent myself from this forum for a while, I feel.

Apologies all round if I have offended.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 12, 2014 at 6:56:22 pm

[Bill Davis] "As there are in the worlds of Premier and AVID editors as well. (See, I had to go on defense there, to make sure I was "inclusive" or people would have spun that to me arguing - again! - that X is "better overall" - it really is tiring to always have to constantly play defense)
"


That's not an X-centric thing though. I agree w/what you said earlier that blanket statements aren't helpful and if someone thinks X, Avid or PPro is the best they should be specific because no NLE is the best at everything for everyone in every situation. Qualifying one's position isn't playing defense, IMO, it's clarifying one's point for the benefit of everyone involved in the conversation.


[Bill Davis] "I will put it out there, however, that it seems that in this corner of the internet, X has to be "as good" as AVID or PREMIER on "their" terms. Yet nobody ever demands AVID or PREMIER have to be "as good" as X on X's terms."

It's not an X vs the world situation though (unless that's how you want to see it). For example, sure Avid and PPro have tracks where X does not, but X and PPro have a similar approach to multicam which is easier and more flexible than Avid's. X and PPro also don't have the project resolution shortcomings that Avid has. Avid's search isn't as refined as X's, but IMO both Avid and X have better search functionality than PPro (although in the latest update PPro got much better). For a big, multi-editor show I'd still take Avid + ISIS over anything PPro and X currently offer.

What I don't understand, especially from people that have been in the industry for a while, is the seeming surprise that X has to 'earn its stripes'. It's nothing new or unique to X. Film and linear tape editors didn't fall in love with NLEs when NLEs were new. It took years before FCP Legend shook the 'it's only for people that cannot afford a real NLE' label. Hell, PPro has largely been seen as an 'also ran' until recently (and even then it took Apple killing FCP 7 to even open the door of consideration for PPro as a viable alternative). Good... bad... it's just the nature of the beast.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 13, 2014 at 4:07:39 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Hell, PPro has largely been seen as an 'also ran' until recently (and even then it took Apple killing FCP 7 to even open the door of consideration for PPro as a viable alternative). Good... bad... it's just the nature of the beast."

Yep.

I concur with the vast majority of what you wrote above as well.

Good post.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 13, 2014 at 7:48:38 am

[Bill Davis] "Yep.

I concur with the vast majority of what you wrote above as well.

Good post.
"


We agree! That's our quota for the year, now back to arguing! ;)


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 13, 2014 at 4:05:17 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "I would just like to say that if you're looking for exciting innovation, the guys at Adobe are positively scorching up the ground in the pace of development of Premiere and that too is something that needs celebrating from time to time.

Let's all try and understand what's great about FCP X (and there's plenty to like, I'll be the first to admit), but let's try not to do it in the context of trashing the competition. At least that's what I'll continue to try to do, but I should probably absent myself from this forum for a while, I feel.

Apologies all round if I have offended."


Woah. Absolutely NO offense. And please do NOT leave even a little. The entire point of "Or not" over all these years is that it's been a place where spirited debate is valued. And I hope to heck it still is.

Personally, I have ZERO disdain for the actual Adobe development effort. I agree they're working extremely hard to expand the program and make it as great as is humanly possible.

My sole disagreement is with the Adobe upper management approach to their business model. That is based on my understanding of the wider business discussions of OPT OUT verses OPT IN purchase plans. I LOATHE opt out payments with the white hot passion of the sun. I hate them in insurance, in software licensing, and generally in EVERYTHING. I can conceive that it may be the ONLY way for them to stay viable as a business enterprise (tho I seriously doubt that.) I just think it's absolutely consumer hostile. I think corporate leadership does it for the most venal of all possible reasons, because it impresses the heck out of the investor class - PERIOD. It's a stealth Price Hike - nothing more or less. And since the business executive class is already doing astonishingly well compared to consumers - to let them shift even MORE power away from the individual and toward the banking/big business sector is a, VERY bad idea, IMO. But that's NOT about how well the software works. At all.

That I sometimes compare Premier unfavorably to X, is more about the REACH of their improvement path - not in any way the execution. It's because I compare what they're doing to what X is doing which seems to me to have greater reach and risk. And I admire that. But remember, these are the opinions of an observer, NOT a software design professional. It's a lay opinion. Period.

But please, Simon. DO NOT feel you've overstepped anything. At all.

You've added to this debate, as you have to every single one I've ever see you participate in. And I value that greatly.

Please stay and play. It classes up the place a lot!

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 13, 2014 at 10:48:44 am

[Bill Davis] "(See, I had to go on defense there, to make sure I was "inclusive" or people would have spun that to me arguing - again! - that X is "better overall" - it really is tiring to always have to constantly play defense)"

Hear hear. No idea why simply expressing a personal preference and maybe a different view or experience on matters put to discussion (or NOT I guess??) is axiomatically interpreted as an attack on any and every personal preference, view or experience someone else may have. Interpreted to mean nothing else than "Mine is better than yours! Nyeh nyeh nyeh!" as a whole by default.

It's childish and laborious to no end. Especially when we're talking about a forum geared specifically towards FCP X and that turns out to be the bone of contention over and over again anyway. Huh?? What the... (which brings me to not getting the whole point or intention of this thread to begin with either btw)

To think that I (and I'm sure others) explicitly avoid forums that cater to other NLE users to also avoid exactly those sorts of constant, meandering diatribes... and you're followed wherever you go by those "I'm mo' betta PRO than you!" folk, set on clarifying what a doofus you are for being content with X and need to save you from yourself.

Sorry, I don't get the purpose in or gain from expending such energy on something ultimately so utterly paltry as a friggen software package. As much as I've made myself guilty of getting dragged into said "discussions", yes. My bad.







To your "inclusiveness": my merely stating a personal preference as a side-note as a possible option for anyone interested (AND clearly stating that I had no idea what the competition was doing, therefore it could hardly be qualified as any kind of judgment or as a "the others suck!" comparison) STILL resulted in my being embroiled in what seemed like some sort of sales pitch for "the other side" from more than one person. Completely for arguments sake, nothing else. It had nothing to do with respecting actual, individual and objective need, just with one-upping something I dared to personally prefer... but then I guess that fits in perfectly as far as the IMO ostensible point of the thread as a whole is concerned and I guess I wasn't "inclusive" enough? If that doesn't qualify as overstepping, then I don't know what does and I'm clearly in the wrong forum I guess.

Oh well... GROUP HUG!!! ;-D

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 13, 2014 at 2:30:07 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Hear hear. No idea why simply expressing a personal preference and maybe a different view or experience on matters put to discussion (or NOT I guess??) is axiomatically interpreted as an attack on any and every personal preference, view or experience someone else may have. Interpreted to mean nothing else than "Mine is better than yours! Nyeh nyeh nyeh!" as a whole by default. It's childish and laborious to no end. Especially when we're talking about a forum geared specifically towards FCP X and that turns out to be the bone of contention over and over again anyway. Huh?? What the... (which brings me to not getting the whole point or intention of this thread to begin with either btw)"

The intention of this thread seems to have been to address an insulting meme that has been popping up here lately (what I have called the "Luddite dinosaur" argument), which is a comment on the collective mindset and abilities of the users of an application, not a comment on any application itself.

Expressing your personal preference for software should not be axiomatically interpreted as an attack.

Suggesting that someone who does not share your personal preference might be an "elitist nerd" operator, not an artist, and might be "scared senseless that people will now finally find out that all they could in fact ever do was memorize buttons and knew when to push them" on the other hand... how should that be interpreted?

Oh, and yes, I'm being facetious... but then, not really.

(Citation: https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/74924)

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 13, 2014 at 6:24:37 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Nov 13, 2014 at 6:27:50 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Suggesting that someone who does not share your personal preference might be an "elitist nerd" operator, "

Thanks for making my point. Never mind that I wasn't referring to users of any specific NLE in particular. They are in fact completely platform and NLE agnostic.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 14, 2014 at 3:30:16 am

Since our dear Franz B. has retired (to the voting section, apparently) I have tried to source the term "luddite" or "dinosaur" or "luddite dinosaur" on this forum.

Luddite first showed up, April of 2011 before X was even launched.

Then a few months later in June 2011, it was used again.

Then, a little later in the same month, there was (of course) a thread dedicated to the matter in search of the very definition of what a Luddite means in the context of FCPX: https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/7671

What's interesting is to look up the post just before or right around, to the one where the word "Luddite" was used.

I found, in the 5 minutes I spent on it, that the term is mostly used be people that didn't like X at the time, and didn't like what it represented. "New Coke" was used a little, to describe X. This post sums it up pretty well: https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/7854 The Luddite term seems to be somewhat self-imposed. It's the "Luddites" calling themselves a Luddite, if you will allow me a joke.

Then I looked up dinosaur, and most of the references are to software itself (FCP7 being a dinosaur) not to the editor, and this seems to have been personified by people who were still using 7 at the time with no end in sight.

And Luddite Dinosaur...well Mr Soyka, you own that one! ;)

*Turns to camera*...And that's our COW archive search of the day, brought to you by Creative COW Archives (faketm).



The reason I looked it up is because I know that I wouldn't personally call someone a dinosaur or a Luddite with any serious overtone. I thought I'd try and see where it started.


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 15, 2014 at 2:11:55 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Suggesting that someone who does not share your personal preference might be an "elitist nerd" operator, not an artist, and might be "scared senseless that people will now finally find out that all they could in fact ever do was memorize buttons and knew when to push them" on the other hand... how should that be interpreted?"

Yes. I agree this particular statement is a bit out of bounds. But I don't think this is common at all on this forum. And we're spending WAY TOO MUCH time complaining about these posts. And I will also say that posts like this do not attack a particular person. Whereas the pushback often does attack a particular person.

I also think it's not the same point as discussing whether or not there is resistance in giving FCP X a fair shake in the editing community because of ingrained ideas. I believe that is a true phenomenon, you may disagree. The problem is when anything like this is mentioned, that person is immediately accused of perpetuating the "dinosaur trope."

Can we just move on? And agree to be more civil in our discussions about editors who don't use our preferred editing programs. And not to constantly complain about "dinosaur tropes."


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 16, 2014 at 4:06:33 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Nov 16, 2014 at 4:18:38 pm

[Brett Sherman] "Yes. I agree this particular statement is a bit out of bounds."

Yeah. Sure would be. Had anyone actually said it. Too bad that some people seemingly prefer to misinterpret and twist others' assertions to, I guess, feed their own confirmation bias as a weird attempt at discrediting those that disagree? Another great example: Bill's statement that has been vehemently discussed, but he, too, never actually made... funny how I and others got what was meant perfectly the first time around... hmmm...

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 16, 2014 at 10:14:14 pm

You said it.

Tim


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 5:39:56 pm

[Brett Sherman] "I also think it's not the same point as discussing whether or not there is resistance in giving FCP X a fair shake in the editing community because of ingrained ideas. I believe that is a true phenomenon, you may disagree. The problem is when anything like this is mentioned, that person is immediately accused of perpetuating the "dinosaur trope.""

Brett, I don't believe I have ever wielded the Dino-Hammer in this manner. If you can cite me for it, please do, because I'd owe someone clarification or a major apology. I can't think of any instance where I've seen anyone else do what you're describing, either, but perhaps I am mistaken. I'd take your side in those cases.

I agree with you about the resistance to giving FCP X a fair shake. The continued existence of this forum should be proof enough.

(Interestingly, I think we're also starting to see a major shift in tone here, where there is resistance to giving Pr/MC/Smoke/Vegas/whatever a fair shake, too.)

The Luddite Dinosaur Argument is an ad-hominem attack on an entire group of users, based solely on the application they choose to use, or choose not to use. This is the cousin of a couple of ad-hominem attacks used here against FCP X users not that long ago, the Fanboy Argument and the YouTube Skater Argument, both now extinct (dinosaur joke!).

We collectively shot down those ad-hominems as the intellectual dishonesties and impediments to understand that they were. It's nicer here when we're assuming that we are all capable of making professional decisions and discussing workflows than when we're dismissing someone's opinions outright because we assume they are too resistant to change, or overfond of Apple, or not doing serious work.


[Brett Sherman] "Can we just move on? And agree to be more civil in our discussions about editors who don't use our preferred editing programs. And not to constantly complain about "dinosaur tropes.""

Employing a negative stereotype for the sake of rhetoric should be considered uncivil. I think that calling the use of such a stereotype what it is should not be.

I'm more than happy to move on and retire from this thread, but I don't think the rhetorical use of a stereotype should pass without comment.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 13, 2014 at 4:03:58 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "It's childish and laborious to no end. Especially when we're talking about a forum geared specifically towards FCP X and that turns out to be the bone of contention over and over again anyway. "

The forum wasn't geared towards FCP X, it was geared towards the contention over FCP X and has since evolved into a catch-all discussion area on the COW (though the focus is still mainly on discussing NLEs). As I mentioned in another post, the forum could've been named "FCP X or FCP 7 or Avid MC or Lightworks or Premiere Pro or Sony Vegas or Resolve: The Debate" but "FCP X or Not" is a little more catchy.

If you want geared towards FCP X go to the FCP X Techniques forum.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 3:11:03 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "has since evolved into a catch-all discussion area on the COW (though the focus is still mainly on discussing NLEs)."

Then we should re-name it and take FCPX out of the title. Like "What's Your Favorite NLE and Why?" And then everyone could just flail away. Even the lurking Adobe guys....

I think having FCPX in the Forum title could be confusing and then intimidating to a new X user looking for advice (like the one I advised to go to the "Techniques" forum the other day).

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 3:42:58 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Then we should re-name it and take FCPX out of the title. Like "What's Your Favorite NLE and Why?" And then everyone could just flail away. Even the lurking Adobe guys....

I think having FCPX in the Forum title could be confusing and then intimidating to a new X user looking for advice (like the one I advised to go to the "Techniques" forum the other day).
"


Renaming suggestions have been made before but obviously nothing came of it. I do agree having FCPX in the title might be confusing though technical questions pop up in here much less frequently than I thought they would.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 4:03:16 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Renaming suggestions have been made before but obviously nothing came of it."

Tim?

I think the "debate" of FCPX specifically is over. If people want to debate, just make this the general "NLE Debate Forum".

Scott

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 4:35:40 pm

I don't think you can ignore why this forum started, and I think, still brings people to this very forum. If you change the name, you will lose some of the mystique.

Hell, just last week, there was a reignited tracks vs no tracks debate, which is essentially, X or not.

It's not broken, no reason to fix it, and the debate still continues.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 5:20:45 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's not broken, no reason to fix it, and the debate still continues."

What's the debate? It's not about X specifically anymore. Change it to better reflect spirit of what the forum has become.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 5:33:38 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "What's the debate? It's not about X specifically anymore. Change it to better reflect spirit of what the forum has become."

I don't know if you were part of that Honda thread, or this thread that was a subset of the Honda thread, it is still very much about X, the editors that use it, in what environments, or not.

It isn't about Avid vs Pr, you know? It's extremely rare that a thread is specifically started about another NLE vs another NLE (and the editors/artists that use them) that isn't somehow related to X or Apple. It is the very frame of reference of this forum. Changing the name will change the frame of reference, and I'm not sure that would do any better than what is happening here, right now.

Now, changing a frame of reference is often a good and necessary step in order to move a conversation forward or offer new opinion in order to move the conversation forward. In the context of this forum, do you think a name change will invite more conversation than what is already happening here? My opinion is that it won't, but I am often wrong.

The COW has methods to move techniques questions to the techniques forum, which is a subtle (albeit limited) way to have a vote in what is relevant to this forum. I do think that the debate and technical question should remain separate.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 7:02:03 pm

So Jeremy, explain to me what the "debate" is and how it relates to X?

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 7:09:43 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "So Jeremy, explain to me what the "debate" is and how it relates to X?
"


To me, it's whether or not X can survive in a demanding professional environment, what those environments are (or if there are environments that are best suited for X, if any), and how that relates to other NLEs/professional video packages.

I am an X user, I really like it, but hearing and understand any dissent keeps me interested, and helps me to understand differing points of view. Personally, this is good for me as I can then interact with clients/co-workers/collaborators that understand the differences in NLEs and ask me why I am editing on X (or why haven't I switched to something else). It helps me to see things, from a business point of view, that I might not see otherwise. The debate is still very worth while. X can do amazing things, but I don't think it is safe to say the debate is over. Do you?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 7:13:25 pm

Considering the amount of people still using FCP Legacy, I would say the debate is far from over.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 7:35:38 pm

[Steve Connor] "Considering the amount of people still using FCP Legacy, I would say the debate is far from over."

The fact that some (including me) have to use, or choose to use, an EOL'ed software has nothing to do with some "debate". The debate, if there ever was one, is long over.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 8:03:11 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "The fact that some (including me) have to use, or choose to use, an EOL'ed software has nothing to do with some "debate". The debate, if there ever was one, is long over.
"


Certainly the "is FCP X Professional" debate is over, not sure what you mean by "if there ever was one" but there is still a lot to talk about as witnessed by the fact the forum is so busy with mostly FCP X related discussions.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 8:05:17 pm

[Steve Connor] "Certainly the "is FCP X Professional" debate is over"

But is it professional enough? ;)


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 8:08:36 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "But is it professional enough? ;)"

Great new name for the forum ;)


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 8:15:04 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "But is it professional enough? ;)"

This guy doesn't seem to think so... :)


[image]

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 8:26:02 pm

[Walter Soyka] "This guy doesn't seem to think so... :)"

Is that our Punxsutawney Phil?


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 7:30:40 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "X can do amazing things, but I don't think it is safe to say the debate is over. Do you?"

Yes, it is. X is part of the professional conversation. Many of use it everyday and bill the same rate we did on Avid, Premiere or Legacy (actually a bit more in some cases). Legacy is dead and there are other options for those who don't want to switch. There is no debate, except within one's own mind on what product to use for what job.

Or perhaps we should have a couple other forums:

Avid Media Composer: Pay How Much a Year for THAT? - The Debate

or

Premiere Pro: You Call That an Interface? - The Debate


Just as relevant, no? Or perhaps this should become The Debate forum and drop X from the title.

;-)

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 7:51:25 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Or perhaps we should have a couple other forums"

There is another. Adobe Creative Cloud: The Debate [link]. It's not a very lively place anymore, probably because it's practically a single-issue forum dedicated to ranting about subscription software. There's not much left to say.

This forum, on the other hand, ventures into topics about actually getting work done from time to time, so there's constantly something new to explore. The mechanics for working are significantly different in FCP X than other popular NLEs, and those issues seem to be the primary focus here.


[Scott Witthaus] "Or perhaps this should become The Debate forum and drop X from the title."

I do see your point -- but when's the last time we had a discussion that hinged on the differences between, say, Pr/Ae and Smoke?

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 8:47:45 pm

[Walter Soyka] "but when's the last time we had a discussion that hinged on the differences between, say, Pr/Ae and Smoke?"

Well, perhaps if you dropped the X moniker, Smoke and Premiere/Ae would feel more welcome to join "the debate" (insert evil laughing sound effects here). It just seems a bit silly, IMHO, three years on we are talking about "The Debate" (more evil laughing)....

Tim - what do you think? "The NLE Open Debate Forum"? There for those folks who like to 'kvetch'.

;-)

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 9:43:20 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Yes, it is. X is part of the professional conversation. Many of use it everyday and bill the same rate we did on Avid, Premiere or Legacy (actually a bit more in some cases). Legacy is dead and there are other options for those who don't want to switch. There is no debate, except within one's own mind on what product to use for what job. "

There is still a debate, especially when other colleagues I talk to, including some that teach or have access to a much younger generation of digital film and video professionals, say that they don't see much of an X uptake.

I've always known that X could be used professionally, even when X was an absolute dog of an interface when it was first released, but my opinion doesn't trump what other people think. The debate is still somewhat healthy, or perhaps the debate has changed to, is FCPX the right tool or not? I still don't think it's worthy of a forum name change, which is the point of this conversation. Ironically, we are talking about if X is worthy or not, in this conversation about changing the forum name to something that is less FCPX centric.

I am an X user. I am going to use it in the foreseeable future, made a fairly sizable investment in a new Apple and Thunderbolt infrastructure retool, and use X every single day. I am comfortable with the choices we have made as a business, but that still doesn't mean the X or not debate is over in the broader sense of all the things that this forum entails.

[Scott Witthaus] "Avid Media Composer: Pay How Much a Year for THAT? - The Debate

or

Premiere Pro: You Call That an Interface? - The Debate
"


But you see, this forum still maintains an FCPX frame of reference. I know I talked about that in the previous post, but in your examples above, if you take away the FCPX frame of reference, the forum will turn in to what you have listed. You could ask those questions, right here, without changing the name of the forum, and get some solid answers from people who use those NLEs and subsequent services.

If you make this a Pr forum, or an Avid forum (of which there are multiple here on the COW) then what does that do as an FCPX user who wants to participate in the debate? Perhaps a brand new forum is in order? How do you get people to participate and what is the frame of reference?


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 18, 2014 at 3:49:59 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "If you make this a Pr forum, or an Avid forum (of which there are multiple here on the COW) then what does that do as an FCPX user who wants to participate in the debate?"

Um, the FCPX user simply posts, like Avid and Premiere folks to here. What's the difference?

We will have to agree to disagree. There is no debate anymore. Whatever debate there was is over.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Perhaps a brand new forum is in order? "

To do what, debate? Debate what?

Or just change the title of this forum.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 18, 2014 at 3:52:21 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Or just change the title of this forum."

You might want to look at the title of this thread one more time. The idea of changing the name of this forum comes up about once a month, and it gets shot down once a month. Under the heading of "it ain't broke. so..."

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 18, 2014 at 4:50:55 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The idea of changing the name of this forum comes up about once a month, and it gets shot down once a month."

Who shoots it down? Tim?

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 18, 2014 at 4:54:09 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Who shoots it down? Tim?"

First some people complain about the name of the forum, then more people complain about changing the name of the forum , then Tim comes on and says that the name stays as is. And on and on ...

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 18, 2014 at 5:13:48 pm

[Herb Sevush] "First some people complain about the name of the forum, then more people complain about changing the name of the forum , then Tim comes on and says that the name stays as is. And on and on ...
"


Most people know what this forum is for, I don't think a name change would get any more people in. The discussions here can be very broad indeed, only one or two people moan when they are not directly FCPX related.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 18, 2014 at 5:18:47 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "To do what, debate? Debate what?"

To fulfill whatever it is that you feel like this forum is missing. I'm not saying start another debate forum, we have one, I'm saying start a brand new forum that will not be a "debate" forum.

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, not questioning your motives. I think you have a point, but let me ask a few questions. Do you want to change the title of this forum because of the captive audience? Or do you want to change the title of this forum because there is nothing more to discuss about FCPX and its place in the world? What do you feel that you can't ask here on this forum, and how would a new name allow for better questions or talking points?

Changing the name of this forum, I feel, denies it's existence. There was a healthy and spirited debate among colleagues here, and the death of FCP Legend, and subsequent launch of fcpx is how this forum grew organically.

If you search old posts, they relate, sometimes through tenuous connections, to fcpx or the death of the Legend in one way or another, and that is the origin of this forum.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 17, 2014 at 7:31:39 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I am an X user, I really like it, but hearing and understand any dissent keeps me interested, and helps me to understand differing points of view."

Opposite side of the coin for me. I'm not an X user but I like to keep tabs on it to see how it's progressing and what people are using it for and how they are using it. For example, the part of the Honda ad workflow where the editor used compound clips as containers to hold the low rez clips (and later the high res clips) I thought was interesting and it's something I'm going to see if I can replicate in PPro using nests (I know nests are a scary thing in FCP 7, but in PPro the multicam is a nest so it's a much more robust feature).


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 18, 2014 at 11:35:08 am

[Scott Witthaus] "the lurking Adobe guys...."

I'm sorry you find disdain for having various Adobe folks at Creative Cow as a whole including this forum offering to help out and join the conversation. You're entitled to that opinion of course, but for the record, we don't 'lurk' - we 'participate'. I wonder what you would say if I was an Apple employee here. Food for thought.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 18, 2014 at 1:34:15 pm

Dennis, I'm not sure Scott meant that to be derogatory in any way. Regardless, your presence (along with others like Kevin and Todd) is very much appreciated, as many of us here are NLE-ambidexterous by necessity. Thanks for joining in.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 18, 2014 at 2:27:31 pm
Last Edited By Steve Connor on Nov 18, 2014 at 2:29:38 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Dennis, I'm not sure Scott meant that to be derogatory in any way. Regardless, your presence (along with others like Kevin and Todd) is very much appreciated, as many of us here are NLE-ambidexterous by necessity. Thanks for joining in.
"


Agreed, I did't read anything negative into that either, we all "lurk" on here as do people from Apple no doubt.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 18, 2014 at 3:37:21 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "I'm sorry you find disdain for having various Adobe folks at Creative Cow as a whole including this forum offering to help out and join the conversation."

Dennis -

No disrespect intended. I find it interesting and enlightening. But just another good reason to make this more inclusive than an "X DEBATE" forum.

Scott

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 19, 2014 at 8:00:31 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "No disrespect intended."

Great to hear. Thanks for responding. As for the name of the forum, some things take on a life of their own and I don't even think about it as the FCP X forum but rather the debate forum. What's in a name? I will say if Cow were to change it, I'd want the Creative Cloud Debate changed to 'subscription vs. perpetual debate' ;-)


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 19, 2014 at 8:11:58 pm

[Dennis Radeke] " I will say if Cow were to change it, I'd want the Creative Cloud Debate changed to 'subscription vs. perpetual debate' ;-)"

I wouldn't worry about that forum too much, it's a bit of a ghost town at the moment (at least until Adobe choose to puts the subscription price up! )


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 19, 2014 at 9:15:18 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "I'd want the Creative Cloud Debate changed to 'subscription vs. perpetual debate' ;-)"

That gives me an idea, "FCP X: Perpetual Debate!".


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 20, 2014 at 3:39:24 am

[Steve Connor] "at least until Adobe choose to puts the subscription price up!"

And you KNOW that is going to happen....

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 19, 2014 at 9:53:55 pm

Gosh Dennis,

Does this mean you see the "or Not" appendage as calling into question the value of the thing it's attached to in a clearly negative way?

Imagine that.

; )

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 20, 2014 at 2:53:57 pm

[Bill Davis] "Does this mean you see the "or Not" appendage as calling into question the value of the thing it's attached to in a clearly negative way? Imagine that."

The "Or Not" is interesting. You get to choose how it offends you!

You can either take offense because the title suggests that FCP X is so horrid that any other product might be better, or you take offense because the title uniquely recognizes FCP X and implies that no other product is even worth acknowledging by name.

(Personally, I think the title more or less accurately reflects the FCP-centricity of this forum. There was a choice that nearly all of us here had to make a few years back: do we upgrade from FCP7 to FCP X, Or Not?)

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Old dogs new tricks
on Nov 20, 2014 at 6:23:40 pm

[Walter Soyka] "(Personally, I think the title more or less accurately reflects the FCP-centricity of this forum. There was a choice that nearly all of us here had to make a few years back: do we upgrade from FCP7 to FCP X, Or Not?)"

There many people still using 7 so there are lots of choices yet to come.


Return to posts index

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