FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCPX Dogs, New Names

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Tim Wilson
FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 20, 2014 at 6:54:42 pm
Last Edited By Tim Wilson on Nov 20, 2014 at 7:06:08 pm

Before I get properly started, my apologies for the delay replying to the fun started on Old Dogs thread. Other parts of my job intervened, but I'm back to the fray.

I've also been thinking a lot about this. Here's where I'm at right now.

I've said from the beginning that I've never been opposed to renaming the forum. My only requirement has been that someone actually come up with a better name. Three years later, nobody has suggested a single alternative that has gotten any traction from anyone else on that thread.

BTW, this hasn't come up as often as some folks are saying. The last time was 7 months ago. Again around the first of last year, then once the year before.

Now then, with no objection to a new name in principle, I have three bottom lines.


1. A new name has to be REALLY better.

When somebody here proposes a specific name that makes a lot of other people say "Yep, that's the one," that's the first sign that we're on the right track.

Hasn't happened yet.


2. It's a debate forum.

Even a statement like "the right tool for the right job" can be seen as inherently derogatory, because it implies that there are jobs for which FCPX is NOT the right tool, when in fact, in proper hands, FCPX can do anything. For some people, it's always the best tool.

Or not.

"Not" means "not." Nothing more, nothing less. It implies nothing about WHAT the "or" refers to, and it implies no value judgements about the reasons for choosing FCPX "or Not."

Not means not.

Which leads to the ongoing debate over whether there's a debate. *A* debate may have been settled for your or me personally, but again, that depends on which debate we're talking about. This forum has never been about a single debate, not for a single second.

Maybe we just add an "s." Apple FCPX or Not: The Debates.


3. FCPX is the one and only reason there's any debate.

Before I begin this section, I suggest grabbing a beverage. Perhaps an adult beverage.

In the 30 days leading up to NAB 2011, Creative COW had 1.7 million visitors, and roughly 1000 posts a day. Across the web, I followed NAB hashtags and individual Twitter feeds galore. I followed Facebook posts and news at other sites. We had a couple of reporters at the show, and I listened to them.

All the way through the end of the first day, I heard not one whisper of anyone meaningfully unhappy with their current NLE or its prospects.

Certainly there was some hope that Apple would have a less pathetic showing than the last four NABs, which had seen nothing significant in either 2009 or 2007, apart from the not at all immediately obvious workflow advantages from Pro Res. Most of the very real excitement about Pro Res in later NABs came from products like AJA iO in 2009, and NOT from Apple.

Check the archives on this. The biggest Apple-related takeaway from each of the previous six NABs, all the ones since the addition of multicam in 2005, was that Apple had underwhelmed.

With absolutely ZERO sign that anybody was considering switching from FCP. ZEROOOOOOOOO.

Really, even the hubbub about Apple's disappointing NABs went away almost immediately as people came home and got back to work on the NLE that they loved. "Love" is the only word to describe the intensity of devotion that could withstand wave after wave of disappointment.

Alternatively, love is a good word for not viewing the state of things as much of a disappointment at all. You don't look for change from your loved ones as musch as you look for DEVOTION. Change for its own sake is more often a BAD sign. FCP is working. My workflow is flowing. Don't mess things up.

The FCP guys were in fact the dogs not needing new tricks. I'd argue that there was no group of users LESS likely to change NLEs. In some cases, because they didn't need or want any tricks that were all that new. In other cases, because they'd tried other NLEs, landed on FCP, and had no intention of leaving, ever. Refinements would be good, improvements, yes.

But please, no new tricks. I've been tricked before.


Sidebar:
The one dynamic that might have moved the needle was the increasingly compelling advantages of Premiere Pro for After Effects-intensive production. I've always felt that Premiere Pro was undercounted by FCP-ers obsessed with market share (Resolved: No other NLE's users have ever talked more about market share. Debate!), and underrated by people for whom Premiere Pro was always a better choice than FCP or Media Composer anyway. They just didn't know because they didn't look.

And why on earth would they? They didn't because they didn't need to. FCP dogs had no need for new tricks!

(I had a whole section here about compare/contrast with the Creative Cloud debate, but I'll save it. And yes, I trim these posts before I post them.)

Let's continue.


"Apple doesn't care about pros."

Much of the frustration with FCP's lack of progress was with Apple's apparent failure to reciprocate the devotion of its most passionate media professional fans. The first appearance of "Apple doesn't care about pros" in Creative COW dates back to the point at which iPods became Apple's biggest source of revenue, around 2003. You can see it in the archives. It's uncanny.

And every time it has come up since then, it means the same thing: "Apple doesn't care about pros" = "Apple doesn't care about my needs as much as I rely on Apple to meet them."

Mere minutes into Apple's NAB presentation, the outrage was so immediate that we had no choice but to open a new forum to manage it. No kidding, it had so completely swamped the FCP forum that we had the new forum opened before Apple got off the stage.

There's been a strain of revisionist debate about how chirpy the audience was at the demo, but that's often the nature of these kinds of presentations. People start clapping when the splash screen comes up. People WANT to be pleased....but the record clearly shows that, with overwhelming vehemence across the web, there was a meaningful number of people in that room who were not pleased at all.

The fact that increasing numbers of people are pleased NOW doesn't change anything about why, even after its growth from ugly duckling into the glorious, glowing swan of Zeus himself, FCPX is still untenable for some people, and why other people are convinced that THOSE people just "aren't holding it right."


THE DEBATE(S)

Coming at this another way, if FCPX had instead been an update along the lines of the steps from 5 to 6 to 7, there would be no debate, except over when Apple was ever going to get its act together and deliver what its customers wanted and needed.

So....three years later, has Apple delivered what you wanted and needed?

Three years later, are you feeling that Apple is as devoted to your needs as a media professional you are to Apple?


That's a whole 'nother thread, and I think it would be plenty debate-y.




CREATIVE COW'S FIRST DEBATE

In May, we celebrate 20 years of building communities for media professionals. Twenty years!

Before 2011, there had been exactly one debate in our entire history. One. Whether DV was a "professional" format OR NOT. DV or Not: The Debate.

FCP originally got sucked up into that, when it didn't support "professional" IO. DV is not professional, ergo, FCP is not professional.

Along came SDI support, and the debate over whether FCP was "professional" faded almost immediately. The debate was never about FCP, at least in Creative COW. It was about "professional" format support.

Also note: the biggest early argument in favor of the "professional" intent and suitability of FCPX was the range of "professional" formats it supported. FCPX supports professional formats, ergo, FCPX is professional.



SO ANYWAY

An idea occurred to me a couple of nights ago as I was drafting this.

(And yes, I've been drafting this. I've also got half a dozen tabs open with posts I've started but not finished in this and other COW forums. And yes, I make this all harder for myself than I need to. And yes, for all the time I spend drafting and trimming, my posts should be a lot shorter and sharper.)

In keeping with my own requirement that any suggestion for a new name for the forum ACTUALLY INCLUDE A NEW NAME for consideration, here's a suggestion:

Apple FCPX & Beyond: The Debates

I'll be honest, I don't at all prefer that to the current name. I think that the current name is the right one.

But, in my spirit of saying that I'll consider changing the name to anything that has the words "FCPX" and "Debate" in it, that large numbers of other people also like, there's my specific offering.

My favorite option is still leaving the name of the forum to keep doing its job, maybe just adding an S, The Debates.



So, refill that adult beverage, and lemme know what you're thinking. I love a good debate.

(Note that since I first posted, I edited to make it shorter. Horrifying, I know. You may need another drink.)


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 20, 2014 at 7:22:00 pm

Just leave it!

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 20, 2014 at 7:35:00 pm
Last Edited By Scott Witthaus on Nov 20, 2014 at 7:38:17 pm

In my mind, as I have stated, the debate about FCPX is over, if there was ever was one. You either use it or not. Hell, we could have a Avid or Not or Premiere or Not forum. It just seems silly to stick one product on the title of the forum and let everyone flail away. If we need a debate, it should be agnostic.

"Creative Editorial Tools Now and in the Future: The Debate"

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


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 20, 2014 at 9:13:04 pm

+1 for leave it (or add the "s")


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 20, 2014 at 9:46:57 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "In my mind, as I have stated, the debate about FCPX is over, if there was ever was one."
+1

Perhaps their was one at one time... but I fail to see it's relevance anymore.

So... I'm not an old Apple Dog (even though I'm someone else old dog). I started using FCP X after using Vegas Pro for 12 years. I never used FCP 7. I would expect a forum called "Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate" to be filled with posts about whether or not one should move from whatever NLE they are on to FCP X or not (or maybe just from FCP 7 to FCP X). Well... Look back and the recent posts and see when the last time that question was raised? The recent posts seem to have nothing to do with whether you should be using FCP X or not. Here are the last 10 post subjects:
  1. This quote is too long for a sig...
  2. FCPX on 5K iMac
  3. Meta: forum pagination.
  4. LG Thunderbolt Monitor 21:9 UHD
  5. Varicam 35
  6. Why can't I export the timeline?
  7. FCPX: A Lesson in Language
  8. It's Alive!!
  9. Why new final cut X is so RESTRICTIVE with connected clips? I DO NOT SEE ANY BENEFIT
  10. Eyeon Fusion now Black Magic Fusion 7.5 is out, light version free, No OS X

It's not that some of those post didn't whine a little (e.g., FCPX: A Lesson in Language) but as Scott pointed out, there is no longer a need for a forum to debate the merits of FCP X any more then you should start one to debate the merits of Premiere Pro, Avid, Sony Vegas, etc. Maybe it's time to archive it and move on?

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

James Culbertson
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 26, 2014 at 9:16:30 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "In my mind, as I have stated, the debate about FCPX is over, if there was ever was one."

This is true. But I realize that often in life, like this forum, names do not accurately reflect content. For my part, I have labeled this forum "Which NLE: the Debate" in my head for a year or so now as that is the most empirically accurate term I can find at this time. But if we have to throw a bone to those who want to keep FCPX in the name perhaps, "Used to be called 'FCPX or not: the debate'" or even better, "FCPX debate: the history." [Documentary approach]

Or since there is so much diversity of opinion on what to call this forum what about: "Anything but FCPX," "Crazy Stupid FCPX debates," or "FCPX: the Disagreement." [Narrative Fiction approach]

Personally, since we probably won't end up with an accurate forum title, I would vote we choose as entertaining a name as possible.

How about "Luddite Dinosaurs versus Editing Toy Fanboys"? ...I mean, if you really want a debate forum.


Return to posts index


Tim Wilson
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 27, 2014 at 5:31:05 am

[James Culbertson] "How about "Luddite Dinosaurs versus Editing Toy Fanboys"? ...I mean, if you really want a debate forum."



I think we're getting warm. LOL


Return to posts index

James Culbertson
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 27, 2014 at 7:35:59 am

[Tim Wilson] "I think we're getting warm. LOL"

Just think, in 5 years (long after AVID and Adobe are gone) when Bare Bones Software releases BBEditVideo and FCPX editors scream about what a toy it is, while all the kids think it is the new best thing, you won't have to change the name of the forum again.


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 27, 2014 at 4:19:41 pm

[James Culbertson] "How about "Luddite Dinosaurs versus Editing Toy Fanboys"? "
That one is growing on me although I'd make it:

"Luddite Dinosaurs versus Kool Aid Drinking Editing Toy Fanboys"

or maybe just

"Which Kool Aid?: The Debate"

of just:

"The Blue Pill or the Red Pill: The Debate"

lol

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index


Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 30, 2014 at 6:32:31 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Hell, we could have a Avid or Not or Premiere or Not forum."

Bingo. To whom does the imho tiredly populistic, reactionary and, if anything, inflammatory and unnecessary tenor of the title actually make any real sense anymore? At best giving fuel to the knuckleheads that wander in every so often pointing to the fact that "FCP X is the only NLE with a "OR NOT" forum! Ha!" and, as many have pointed out already, doesn't even boast a single thread that feeds into the title to begin with. I don't see how you can get any more pointless.

How the "or not" debate in any way even FCP X specific as of about two years ago?? That is, to the point that it actually needs its own forum?? :-D What's next? "Color Keyframes or Not: The Debate"? "Master Audio Fader or Not : The Debate"? "Crunchy or Creamy: The Debate"? All bear equal relevance.

Wait... we'll just make a "FCP X or Not Forum Debate or Not: The Debate" forum debate!! Since that is clearly the biggest time-wasting debate of them all. Talk about record hits!

The title should have never been anything more than a THREAD title. Period. Kill it and consolidate it with the "Techniques" forum. Done.

my two (Euro) ¢
- RK

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Dec 1, 2014 at 2:55:47 am

[Robin S. Kurz] " Kill it and consolidate it with the "Techniques" forum. Done.
"


Well played, Robin. I agree.

sw

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Dec 1, 2014 at 3:03:16 am

Change the name or kill it? Not sure why that needs to happen as it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

This forum, in my opinion, is very different from the techniques forum. Sometimes there's some cross over, most of the time there is not.


Return to posts index


Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Dec 1, 2014 at 12:05:59 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "This forum, in my opinion, is very different from the techniques forum. Sometimes there's some cross over, most of the time there is not."

So I take it that's a vote for "FCP X Techniques or Not"? ;)

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Dec 1, 2014 at 8:17:56 am

[Scott Witthaus] "[Robin S. Kurz] " Kill it and consolidate it with the "Techniques" forum. Done.
"

Well played, Robin. I agree.
"


Perhaps you both could just move to the techniques forum then and then you wouldn't get annoyed by the name anymore?

There's not exactly a groundswell of opinion to change the name or close the forum on here, just a small amount of people making a lot of noise about it!


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Dec 1, 2014 at 11:24:17 am

[Steve Connor] "Perhaps you both could just move to the techniques forum then and then you wouldn't get annoyed by the name anymore?"

C'mon Steve. Can't take a good "debate"? I mean, if we can't debate the debate forum, what's left? No need to get testy. ;-)

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


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Dec 1, 2014 at 11:34:15 am

[Scott Witthaus] "C'mon Steve. Can't take a good "debate"? I mean, if we can't debate the debate forum, what's left? No need to get testy. ;-)"

No testiness intended, just trying to be helpful! At least this place hasn't become a ghost town like the "CC or Not" forum


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Dec 1, 2014 at 12:21:39 pm
Last Edited By Steve Connor on Dec 1, 2014 at 12:28:28 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Some people simply feel they're entitled to ad hominem diatribes and paltry bullying of anyone that dare thinks differently than them, gaining self-justification from the belief that their view is the only "real" and meaningful one. They're just here to hear their own keyboard click. Ah well. Every forum has 'em. ;)
"


Ironic considering the tone of some of your posts! Accusing people of bullying is pretty strong stuff


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Dec 1, 2014 at 12:34:52 pm

Pretty much my point exactly, yes. Thank you for the more suited, pragmatic realization.

- RK


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Dec 1, 2014 at 12:38:27 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Pretty much my point exactly, yes. Thank you for the more suited, pragmatic realization.
"


Thank you for making my point so well too!


Return to posts index

Bob Woodhead
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 20, 2014 at 10:07:17 pm

How about, "FCPX, The Debates"

It keeps the X-centric-ness of the forum, yet acknowledges that we're prone to veer off onto whatever shiny object captures our attention for "debate du jour".

"Constituo, ergo sum"

Bob Woodhead / Atlanta
CMX-Quantel-Avid-Premiere-FCPX-AFX-Crayola
"What a long strange trip it's been...."


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 20, 2014 at 10:28:04 pm
Last Edited By Jeremy Garchow on Nov 20, 2014 at 11:01:13 pm

I think Andrew Kimery nailed it.

FCPX and the Perpetual Debates.

When's the album release party?


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 20, 2014 at 10:34:18 pm

"FCP X and other signs of the apocalypse debates"


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 20, 2014 at 10:42:22 pm

Are we still debating? The last few threads had nothing to do with FCS or how useful it is. And even the Adobe debate forum is dead. I mean...dead. They don't even bring up other topics. Here, there are other topics. But not all FCX related. I'd make this a general NLE debate.

NLE? What's to Debate?

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


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 20, 2014 at 10:50:06 pm

In all honesty and after a great deal of thinking (head hurts like crazy), the name should remain as is.

I did think of "The Great NLE Debate" as a possible name change. Whether it is more relevant I do not know. Also, as time goes on, should the Adobe debate continue or be brought to an end? After all, that forum seems to have slowed down very much, at least from what I can see. Just my thoughts here.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 20, 2014 at 11:05:46 pm

Someone please explain to me why this general thrashing-about debate forum has anything to do with "FCPX Or Not". Maybe when it first was released and there was plenty of teeth gnashing over the EOL of Legacy, but that's long gone now. There is simply no reason to debate FCPX over any other software.

If you were a Legacy user, it's now "FCPX or Something Else: Get Over It". ;-)

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 7:29:00 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Someone please explain to me why this general thrashing-about debate forum has anything to do with "FCPX Or Not". Maybe when it first was released and there was plenty of teeth gnashing over the EOL of Legacy, but that's long gone now."

Why did Apple call their brand new program Final Cut, when it quite definitely, and proudly, had absolutely nothing in common with that very well known product? Obviously Apple thought their was value in the name itself, brand recognition based on the history of the product. Which is why this forum keeps it's original name, even thought the circumstances have changed. "FCPX or not" is a brand name that has value, based on it's history. Come up with a new name so good that it creates more value than your giving up and then maybe you'll convince the powers that be.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 20, 2014 at 11:12:21 pm

By having FCPX in the forum title there is the inevitable post that belongs in the techniques forum but personally I like the history that was behind this debate forum and I have certainly learnt a lot form the breadth of debate about all NLEs and VFX programs that have been raised here.

So I see no good reason the change the title. Yes the whole thing started when X was fist showcased and yes there certainly was debate and strong arguments. Three years later I see that there is still much to debate. Blackmagic, Adobe and others have made sure there is still much to discuss.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 20, 2014 at 11:25:45 pm

[Michael Gissing] " Three years later I see that there is still much to debate. Blackmagic, Adobe and others have made sure there is still much to discuss."

And what does this have to do with having this as an FCPX Debate forum?

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 5:00:27 am

[Michael Gissing] " Three years later I see that there is still much to debate. Blackmagic, Adobe and others have made sure there is still much to discuss."

[Scott Whitthaus]And what does this have to do with having this as an FCPX Debate forum?

It has everything to do with the "or not" part. If you re-read Tim's opening post you might have understood what the core of the debates on this forum have been about. It may be no longer about whether X can be used at all but there is still room for debate and the "or not" case is the heart of this forum. If you think that this is just a self congratulatory exercise in debate about how wonderful X is for you then you seem to have missed the point. Perhaps we should change the title and take out the FCPX bit to make that more patently clear. But as I said I would prefer to leave that in as it is a statement of history.


Having been on this forum since the start and looking for a working alternative to FCS for my work I still don't use FCPX for my sort of collaborative post finishing work. Also I have found very few editors who work in my area who have changed to it and the issues of integrating with my workflows still make it a matter of work arounds. I still come here to read the sort of discourse that allows open debate about all NLEs and relative merits in a variety of usage.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 10:19:49 am

[Michael Gissing] "I still come here to read the sort of discourse that allows open debate about all NLEs and relative merits in a variety of usage."

My point exactly. This forum is not about X specifically, rather the entire NLE landscape.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 10:56:14 am

I realise Scott is running a hard campaign to change the name but I think there are a very LARGE amount of people out there who are still considering their switching options from FCP7 and this forum is still very good at giving those people some genuine insight from actual FCPX users.

If people want a broader NLE forum then make a new one and let that one find an audience - this one still serves a valid purpose IMHO.


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 11:04:00 am

[Michael Gissing] "I still come here to read the sort of discourse that allows open debate about all NLEs and relative merits in a variety of usage."
Then the forum should be renamed to "Which NLE?: The Debate". It seems silly to have it listed with the Apple forums and just be about FCP X. There is no longer a debate as to whether to use FCP X or not any more than there is a debate to use any other NLE or not. If we want a forum to debate about NLE's (which sounds like fun) then rename the forum so that more NLE owners add their voices. As it is now, the forum is probably ignored by any other NLE editor other than FCP 7 and FCP X.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 11:10:20 am

[John Rofrano] "Then the forum should be renamed to "Which NLE?: The Debate""

Bingo! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! That's perfect and makes much more sense to having one NLE in the title. If you want FCPX info, you go to the Techniques forum. Want to rage on about (insert your NLE here), this would be the forum for you.

Well played.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 11:44:09 am

[Scott Witthaus] "[John Rofrano] "Then the forum should be renamed to "Which NLE?: The Debate""

Bingo! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! That's perfect and makes much more sense to having one NLE in the title. If you want FCPX info, you go to the Techniques forum. Want to rage on about (insert your NLE here), this would be the forum for you.
"


Or start a new forum and go there!


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 12:28:24 pm

[Steve Connor] "Or start a new forum and go there!"
But I don't believe that's why Tim started this thread. Tim's question was should the forum be renamed, not should we start a new one. That suggests that the name of the forum no longer matches it's content and some of us have suggested that the "FCP X or not debate" has come and gone, and the current thread topics seem to support this (no one is talking about that anymore)

The question is: should we archive it, or rename it to something more appropriate that would invite others to come and debate whatever it is we feel we should be debating here, or let it die like the Creative Cloud Debate forum did?

The purpose of a forum is to invite everyone who is interested to participate. If the name of the forum suggests something different than it's contents, then people will not know what it's "true" purpose is and it would have failed as a vehicle for stimulating group discussion (which is actually the sole purpose of a "debate" forum).

As I said, as a new FCP X editor, I came to this forum looking for what "the debate" was and I didn't find any. That happened 3 years ago. It's time to move on to the "next debate". If we are going to discuss more than FCP X here as some have suggested, then the title should reflect that.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 12:37:59 pm

[John Rofrano] "As I said, as a new FCP X editor, I came to this forum looking for what "the debate" "

I'm a little confused with all the comments about there being no debate on FCPX here, I must be looking at the wrong forum!

"The Debate" has moved on from whether it is professional or not that's for sure but there is still plenty of other things about it and it's ecosystem to "debate"

Other option is to rename this one and change the FCPX techniques forum to a broad FCPX forum similar to the old Final Cut Pro forum which managed to cover both techniques and debate for so many years.


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 1:07:31 pm

[Steve Connor] "I'm a little confused with all the comments about there being no debate on FCPX here, I must be looking at the wrong forum!"
Let me be more specific. What I and others had said was that "the debate as to whether FCP X can be used by professionals is over... lots of us are making money every day using it". The debate that remains is the same debate as whether to use any other NLE. So it's not that there is no debate... it's that the debate pertains to every NLE so let's rename the forum to a more generic NLE Debate forum and attract the proper audience.
[Steve Connor] "Other option is to rename this one and change the FCPX techniques forum to a broad FCPX forum similar to the old Final Cut Pro forum which managed to cover both techniques and debate for so many years."
Agreed! The FCPX Techniques forums confuses me. Once again, I'm a new FCP X editor and I was very confused about where to post FCP X questions. The name "FCP X Techniques" suggests to me that it's a "tips and techniques" form and not a "help" forum. But the Final Cut Pro forum looks like it's a FCP 7 only forum. I'm now seeing people post FCP X questions in both the Final Cut Pro forums and the FCP X Techniques form so once again it "fails to encourage group discussion" because it's not clear what the "group" is all about and it actually fractures the "group" instead of uniting it.

We have 4 Final Cut Pro forums:

Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
Apple FCPX Techniques
Apple Final Cut Pro
Apple Final Cut Pro basics

Do we really need that many forums to discuss one product? Maybe we just need a Final Cut Pro 7 and a Final Cut Pro X forum and that's it and only because those versions are so different from each other. Any debates can occur in their respective forums. I would suggest that the "real" debate is how much longer can you cling to the cold dead FCP 7 before it stops working? ;-) Maybe we should start a "FCP 7: Is is dead Jim? The Debate" forum? (tongue planted firmly in cheek)

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 22, 2014 at 7:16:33 pm

We've always tried to let the community drive the creation of forums. Every application starts with just one, and we let it evolve from there. Some examples:

-- The Basics forums started because of new members who felt intimidated, partly because old members were being dicks. Both new members and old members made the request.

(By the way, we also added an option in your COW Profile to "Hide newbie posts." This was added because of the geezers who, over a period of years, got tired of answering the same question, and couldn't help themselves from being dicks about it. That option is ON by default.

I personally think that that's the wrong default. I think most of the people who are still around in the COW are quite generous, and would happily answer the questions of each new generation of professionals, just as they themselves had been helped. But if not, they could choose to turn it off.

I do think that the right default is to assume that people are NOT dicks, and they DO want to help, so I may have to revisit that too. Opinions?)

-- After Effects added a forum just for Expressions because, especially when that was a new feature, the traffic there really called for it. The forum remains there because the concerns of those folks are different. They're often less concerned with DOING motion graphics than MANAGING motion graphics. The answers to their problems are mathematical, rather than, say, keying or compositing techniques or a menu setting.

Again, the request came from both the Expressive and non-Expressive.

-- The separate forum for Resolve hardware configuration likewise came from the large number of posts asking ONLY about GPUs and computers. This became an issue after Resolve was released for Windows. Instead of a Mac and 2 graphics cards, the number of possibilities exploded, getting in the way of people needing to talk about how to USE Resolve.

This one actually might have been our most adamantly requested break-out.


The Final Cut Pro cluster combines dynamics related to all of these. The split between FCP and FCP Basics came naturally and organically. I think it was the first one we broke out after After Effects.

(Most of the dicks from the AE forum are gone, btw, but those guys could be vicious. If you're one of the ones still here, please stay, but be less of a dick. LOL)

I wrote in my psychotically long overview at the top of this thread why we broke out FCPX or Not: The Debate. Nothing in that set of debates that started in April had anything to do with the USE of Final Cut Pro, which was of course what people could actually USE. Many of those folks won't go FCPX before the sun goes nova.

I think you can see that virtually none of the day-to-day work problems of an FCP user and an FCPX user would have anything to do with an FCP user. Language is different, UI is different, some are old dogs, some are new tricks, etc etc etc.

But nobody could even start to do day to day work until FCPX was actually released in June. When it was, we started the Techniques forum, so named so that people could see in the names where they needed to be: ah yes, in this forum where we work, and this forum is the one where we avoid working. LOL And in fact, we get no more than 2-3 misplaced threads a month.

Over time, we have indeed merged some forums. This happened in storage in particular. We still have the front doors individually indexed, so that a customer of one particular brand will see that name and say "That's me," and head in that door. But what they'll find will be storage experts from across the COW, who've come in their own front doors, because in fact, very few storage problems are brand-specific.

This was not at ALL the case back in the days when some storage companies had specific....issues. Now, there are pretty much only good products left, and only TERRIFIC ones working with the COW, and issues for all their customers are similar.

This does speak to an overall philosophy of ours, which is to break forums out very, very slowly. (FCPX or Not: The Debate being the exception.)

We only had one originally because in 1995, there was no NEED to separate things out. We organized around Media 100, everybody used After Effects, which at the time had TWO sets of plug-ins, and everybody had 'em. We all had the same storage nightmares. We were all, by and large, grownups who'd had to take out loans and second mortgages to get into the business. (I did both.)

That original community was among the first web forums of any kind. Netscape Navigator had just been released, and we were having to explain to people what the internet even WAS.

But we found that our community grew exponentially faster than other, more segmented forums that came later, because when you let people talk about a lot of stuff, they bond along a bunch of different lines that you could never have predicted. It's easier to get answers because there are more people seeing each question.

That is, I might not have a burning need to answer a "Final Cut Pro Storage Issues" question, so I'd avoid a forum broken out that specifically....but if I saw a storage question in the Final Cut Forum that I could answer, I'd answer it.

This is obviously a very different approach than the PHP "forum in a box" forums. Those have a lot of advantages because they were able to build mechanisms in the abstract. Ours is admittedly awkward in places because we built it on the fly, based on practical experiences, in real time.

It might SEEM like a segmented forum is the way to go, and we understand why some people prefer them, but in real time, in the heat of many moments, we have seen that they just don't work as well. Which is why none of them have grown the way that we have, despite many of them having far more money, much larger staffs, and so on.

I think it's an astonishing accomplishment that one video producer, Ron Lindeboom, with ZERO programming experience, could envision a database structure that's still working 20 years later, supporting 3 million sessions a month, many millions of posts, and up to 30 TB of data every day. Doing this while he was actually making a living as a full-time video producer.

None of this was intended to be a business, or started as a business opportunity, or anything like that. There was still no such thing as a web banner at the time. Nobody imagined that you could make money as a content provider, only as an ISP or AOL. Ending the video production company to focus full-time on the web didn't actually happen until the COW in 2001, when it NEEDED to be a full-time business if it was going to happen at all.

All of which is another psychotically long but contextually important overview of why we are very, very slow to open new forums. They get in the way of what we have proven is the right way to do communities -- as few walls as possible. But when people tell us that THEY NEED a new forum, we open it as quickly as we can.

So I think the Final Cut cluster will look like this for a while. Lord knows what Apple might do that might necessitate a change later on, but for now, four forums seems like the right number.


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 22, 2014 at 8:45:26 pm

[Tim Wilson] "-- The Basics forums started because of new members who felt intimidated, partly because old members were being dicks. Both new members and old members made the request."
IMHO the fix for that was to ban the dicks. It's your forum... don't tolerate it! As you know I'm the forum moderator for the Sony Vegas forum and the questions in the Sony Vegas basics forum aren't any more basic than the posts in the Sony Vegas forum. All it does is make me look in two places to help people when I could be looking in one. We treat everyone with equal respect in both forums.
[Tim Wilson] "I do think that the right default is to assume that people are NOT dicks, and they DO want to help, so I may have to revisit that too. Opinions?)"
My opinion is that "Hide newbie posts" should be OFF by default. If you didn't hang out here to help people then don't hang out here. We must all be mindful that we were all once newbies and in fact, I learn more from newbies than I do from old dogs because newbies do things that I would never think of doing, which leads me to try what they did just to see the result, and the figure a way out. I never get tired or answering "What's the best way to render for DVD?" and telling someone to render their video as MPEG2 and their audio as AC3 because at the end of the day.... it's not intuitively obvious to a newbie even though us old dogs can recite in in our sleep and searching doesn't always return what you are looking for.
[Tim Wilson] "So I think the Final Cut cluster will look like this for a while. Lord knows what Apple might do that might necessitate a change later on, but for now, four forums seems like the right number."
OK so which forum do I post FCP X questions to? Final Cut Pro or FCPX Techniques? because while I can appreciate the history of how the forum names came to be... that doesn't make them any more obvious to those of us who just want to ask an FCP X question. ;-)

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 22, 2014 at 11:17:57 pm

[John Rofrano] "OK so which forum do I post FCP X questions to? Final Cut Pro or FCPX Techniques? because while I can appreciate the history of how the forum names came to be... that doesn't make them any more obvious to those of us who just want to ask an FCP X question. ;-)"

Surely not that difficult to figure out?


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 23, 2014 at 1:49:06 am
Last Edited By John Rofrano on Nov 23, 2014 at 2:27:40 am

[Steve Connor] "Surely not that difficult to figure out?"
Hover your mouse over the FCPX Techniques form in the main forum list and it says "Discussion of techniques, tips and tricks using Apple FCP X". Based on that, since my question is not a "technique, tip, or trick" I'd have to guess that the "Final Cut Pro" forum is the correct place to ask Final Cut Pro X questions. Unless of course was a very basic question in which case I should post my FCP X question to the "Final Cut Pro basics" forum.

Did I guess right?

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23:41 am

[John Rofrano] "Did I guess right?"

So, THIS forum has the right name. It's the OTHER forum that needs a new name.

This one stays "FCPX or Not: The Debate" (or Debates).

Maybe call the other one, "FCPX: Get Back To Work You Lazy Bastards." LOL


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 23, 2014 at 11:08:58 am

[Tim Wilson] "Maybe call the other one, "FCPX: Get Back To Work You Lazy Bastards." LOL"
Well if you called the other one "FCPX: I'm pulling my hair out!" I'd know that it was the correct forum to ask FCP X questions. ;-)

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 23, 2014 at 2:24:41 pm

[John Rofrano] "Hover your mouse over the FCPX Techniques form in the main forum list and it says "Discussion of techniques, tips and tricks using Apple FCP X". Based on that, since my question is not a "technique, tip, or trick" I'd have to guess that the "Final Cut Pro" forum is the correct place to ask Final Cut Pro X questions. Unless of course was a very basic question in which case I should post my FCP X question to the "Final Cut Pro basics" forum."

I would imagine that you would read some of the questions already posted in the forum and get a good sense of what people are asking about. Basically, you will asses and gather the context because we are naturally inquisitive creatures.

If you do happen to post in the worng forum, the people that are in the same room with you will tell you that you may need to try the appropriate forum, and there are even methods to move posts to other forums by users, so it may just happen that your post may get moved to the appropriate forum without you having to do much of anything at all.

It's really not hard, and I would image that yes, you would be able to guess correctly most of the time?


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 24, 2014 at 1:09:02 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I would imagine that you would read some of the questions already posted in the forum and get a good sense of what people are asking about. Basically, you will asses and gather the context because we are naturally inquisitive creatures."
I did, and it looks like the same types of questions are being asked in both forums by FCP X users which is why I question the need for both. Sometimes less is more and an appropriate forum name saves a lot of wasted poking around by busy people with deadlines. ;-)

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 24, 2014 at 3:08:21 am

[John Rofrano] " and it looks like the same types of questions are being asked in both forums by FCP X users which is why I question the need for both"

That's interesting because I just looked at the Techniques forum and i didn't see a single thread that overlapped in anyway whatsoever with the threads of this forum. So to edify us, why don't you give an example of a thread written in the past few weeks where there is overlap?

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


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 24, 2014 at 11:54:45 am
Last Edited By John Rofrano on Nov 24, 2014 at 12:16:18 pm

[Herb Sevush] "That's interesting because I just looked at the Techniques forum and i didn't see a single thread that overlapped in anyway whatsoever with the threads of this forum. So to edify us, why don't you give an example of a thread written in the past few weeks where there is overlap?"
Sorry if it wasn't clear. If you read my previous post. I was talking about the Final Cut Pro forum and the FCPX Techniques forum, not this forum. There are questions about FCPX in both forums. I understand that the "Techniques" forum was meant to be people sharing tips and techniques on FCPX but now it's people just asking questions like any other forum. This is why I suggested that we just rename it "Final Cut Pro X" so that people will know that FCP 7 questions go in the "Final Cut Pro" forum and FCPX questions go in the "Final Cut Pro X" forum (without the "techniques" word). I just thought it would be clearer for new folks coming to the COW. The "techniques" designation doesn't quite fit the content anymore.

So am I correct that FCPX questions belong in the FCPX Techniques forum and these posts that are now in the Final Cut Pro forum should be moved because the Final Cut Pro forum is for "legacy" FCP users?

Current FCPX threads in the Final Cut Pro forum
Highest Quality Export w/ mpeg-4 container & H.264 Codec FCPX
Aspect ratio in FCPX
Using FCP X on Mavericks with Final Cut three
FCP 10.1.3 & Yosemite Ruining My Positive Outlook On Life

BTW, I see links at the bottom of those threads that say "Move to FCPX Techniques Forum". Is that because I'm a moderator on another COW forum? Should I move them when I see them?

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 24, 2014 at 12:48:38 pm

[John Rofrano] BTW, I see links at the bottom of those threads that say "Move to FCPX Techniques Forum". Is that because I'm a moderator on another COW forum? Should I move them when I see them?

Those links are for everyone and they are there so you, as a user, can help to curate the content of the forums and direct people to the proper place.

Yes, please use them.


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 24, 2014 at 5:41:42 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Yes, please use them."
Awesome. I voted to move the posts and even answered one of them (now that I found it). ;-)

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 24, 2014 at 5:56:55 pm

[John Rofrano] "Awesome. I voted to move the posts and even answered one of them (now that I found it). ;-)"

Ha! That's awesome!

We actually added that feature to help move questions between the "main" and "basic" forums within a topic, but the needs around this topic are admittedly a bit more extensive.

There's also no getting around that some people aren't quite paying attention. Me, I wouldn't ask a question about a product that isn't referenced in the forum name AT ALL. It's rare to get FCPX questions in the wrong FCPX forum -- no kidding, just a couple a month -- but it's apparently MORE common for FCPX questions to wind up in the FCP forum! There's not a thing we can do about that.

It's actually even broader. We pretty regularly have people respond to a PRESS RELEASE with a tech support question, and sometimes only barely related. (New NVIDIA card just released? Supports a lot more polygons? Great, now why can't I get Cinema 4D to display my textures correctly?) We try to catch as many of these as we can, but we appreciate all the help we can get from you guys.

Do note too that we have a little flag logo in the lower right of each post, with all the other little symbols and such. We sometimes get emails from folks complaining about a post or a poster, but I have a feeling sometimes that we could still use more guidance from you on this. If you see a post that needs attention for any reason -- for example, abusive or inappropriate language -- do us a favor and click that flag to let us know.

In the meantime, thanks to all of you for helping keep us on the rails!


Tim Wilson
Creative COW


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 25, 2014 at 12:18:23 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Do note too that we have a little flag logo in the lower right of each post, with all the other little symbols and such. "
Wow, I never saw that flag until you mentioned it. Very "discrete" ;-)

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 22, 2014 at 11:15:37 pm

[Tim Wilson] "supporting 3 million sessions a month, many millions of posts, and up to 30 TB of data every day."

:O wow!


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 1:22:36 pm
Last Edited By Jeremy Garchow on Nov 22, 2014 at 3:31:40 am

[John Rofrano] "some of us have suggested that the "FCP X or not debate" has come and gone, and the current thread topics seem to support this (no one is talking about that anymore) "

That isn't really true, though. Tracks vs trackless comes up a lot. A surprising amount, really.

In the very long Old Dogs New Tricks thread, 'X or not' is the underlying theme. X and the people that use it vs everyone else.

The debate as a result of the EOL of FCS3, and how X is being used in professional environments, still happens here. And when Apple decides to release a new version of X to catch up with Yosemite, there may be more conversation.

I ask you what I asked Scott. What is it about this forum that needs to change? It can't only be the name. In your opinion, what would changing the name do? Do you feel the conversations are stagnant? Do you feel that changing the name will invite new people? How will they find it? Do you think "FCPX" or "or not" deters people from finding or posting here? Do you want to minimize any hostility?

If you look past the name on the door, it seems like what people want is already here. I also think that if you want to change the discussion, or change the tone, then start new discussions, ask crazy questions, and help curate the tone.

X's viability as a professional NLE isn't on the debate platform anymore, but I do think it's usefulness to certain people, industries, situations, and preferences is still up for debate, and out of those conversations, we all learn a little bit more about how others solve problems, and perhaps learn something new.

There are also developers and their representatives here. Having these conversations, in the very broad context of FCPX/Apple may spark ideas for new tools, not just on fcpx, but other platforms as well. That seems like it's good for all of us, no matter the name on the tin.


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 3:34:31 pm
Last Edited By John Rofrano on Nov 21, 2014 at 4:44:25 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I ask you what I asked Scott. What is it about this forum that needs to change? It can't only be the name. In your opinion, what would changing the name do? Do you feel the conversations are stagnant? Do you feel that changing the name will invite new people? How will they find it? Do you think "FCPX" or "or not" deters people from finding or posting here? Do you want to minimize any hostility? "
I'd like the forum name to reflect the content. That would make it easier for people to find things here on the COW. I got a lot out of the "FCPX on 5K iMac" thread and I participated in it. I would have never looked for a thread like that in a forum called "Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate". If I wanted to ask such a question, I also would not have asked it it a forum called "Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate". So that's my point. There is a lot of good information being posted in this forum that has more to do with the Apple ecosystem in general than "FCP X or Not" in particular. So I do feel that the name deters people from looking inside and seeing that the debate is greater than "FCP X or Not". We are selling ourselves short by limiting it's name to some debate about whether to use FCP X or not as the name currently implies.
[Jeremy Garchow] "If you look past the name on the door, it seems like what people want is already here. I also think that if you want to change the discussion, or change the tone, then start new discussions, ask crazy questions, and help curate the tone. "
No doubt but if the "name on the door" said "Janitor's Closet" would you open it if you were looking for the bathroom? Labels are very important. I'm suggesting that the "name on the door" is misleading, not that the content within is not valuable. You have to understand that I'm giving you the perspective of a newcomer to FCP. I wasn't using FCP three years ago so I don't know what the debate was all about. I started using FCP X this year and I'm looking for help and to help others and the Creative COW should be the place where people come to learn and share regardless of their history here. The forum name is all we have to go by for those of us who are not "old FCP dogs".
[Jeremy Garchow] "I don't think X's viability as a professional NLE is on the debate platform anymore, but I do think it's usefulness to certain people, industries, situations, and preferences is still up for debate, and out of those conversations, we all learn a little bit more about how others solve problems, and perhaps learn something new. "
This is an excellent point worthy of it's own thread. Should a tool designed to be used to create feature films also be good to create nightly news broadcasts? The edit decision I'm about to make in a feature film will live for many years and be viewed by millions of people. The edit decision I'm about to make in an evening newscast will live for 15 frames and never be seen again. Is the same tool appropriate for making those two decisions? Perhaps the former requires considerable thought and planning and carefully placing a clip on track that you don't want to move until you tell it to move and the later would benefit from tossing the clip on a magnetic timeline and moving the edges around until it feels right and darn it. I want the lower third (as a connected clip) to move when I move the talent's face and not think about needing to adjust both!

So I don't see why FCP X needs to be all things to all people. Personally, I think the magnetic timeline is brilliant and I would never edit with a track based editor again. And THAT is at the core of "the debate".

Consider this: If the first developers of word processors mimicked the real world like legacy NLE's attempt to do, your word processor would ring the computers bell when you approached 80 characters and you would have to press the Carriage Return to go to the next line and if you made a mistake, you would need go to the tool bar and grab the "white-out" tool and drag it over the text to change. That would be an absolutely ridiculous design but that is EXACTLY how every other NLE is designed with "bins" and "razor blades" and dialog boxes where you "measure twice before you cut once" and it's silly to work in such an archaic fashion because the whole thing is none destructive! You only need to measure once...heck you probably don't need to measure at all... just drop it on the timeline and directly manipulate it until it feels right. There must be a tradeoff between "familiarity" and re-inventing what it means to edit video. I feel that too many people cling to the familiar and miss out on how much better it could be.

At the end of the day, the value that us "old dogs" have (and I'm including myself here as a video editor for over 14 years) is that we know how to "tell a story". We know how to make an edit look seamless and not draw attention to itself. It doesn't matter what tool we use to do this because the tool doesn't tell us how... our experience tells us how. The tools should get out of our way and make our lives easier and take advantage of new concepts like "meta-data" instead of restricting us to old concepts like "bins" and enable us to do more in new and different ways. That is the essence of what we do.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 5:26:37 pm

[John Rofrano] "I'd like the forum name to reflect the content. That would make it easier for people to find things here on the COW. I got a lot out of the "FCPX on 5K iMac" thread and I participated in it. I would have never looked for a thread like that in a forum called "Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate"."

So, what would the forum name have to be in order for you to find that thread as a new comer?

And then what would the forum name have to be to find the thread about Fusion vs After Effects, and the Blackmagification and consolidation of post?

Or what would the forum name have to be to cover all of the general topics that we cover here? And if you are running the business that is Creative COW, how do you attract people to that forum and make it worth while to advertisers as well as us participants?

[John Rofrano] "No doubt but if the "name on the door" said "Janitor's Closet" would you open it if you were looking for the bathroom? Labels are very important. "

Of course they are. And context is also important. And if I had to go bad enough, I might take a leak in the utility sink. This forum grew out of a very specific context, and Tim's post covers all of that. His first point? He is open to changing the name, but please give a better name. The rules: it has to include "FCPX", and "Debate".

[John Rofrano] "So I don't see why FCP X needs to be all things to all people. Personally, I think the magnetic timeline is brilliant and I would never edit with a track based editor again. And THAT is at the core of "the debate". "

And that's how this forum came to be and why it's still here. Yes, the subjects can expand beyond the magnetic timeline, but at the same time, the context always seems to come back to whether or not X can handle certain workflows, or not.


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 7:12:09 pm
Last Edited By John Rofrano on Nov 21, 2014 at 7:21:35 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "So, what would the forum name have to be in order for you to find that thread as a new comer?"
I would have expected to find "FCPX on 5K iMac" thread in the "Final Cut Pro X" forum but there isn't one! There is an "FCPX Techniques" form which, as I said, I thought was a "tips and techniques" forum which has nothing to do with iMac 5K. And there is this "debate" forum about using "FCPX or Not" which doesn't fit. So the forum I would expect to find that thread under doesn't exist because I would expect it to be in a general FCPX forum.
[Jeremy Garchow] "And then what would the forum name have to be to find the thread about Fusion vs After Effects, and the Blackmagification and consolidation of post?"
I'd expect to find that one in either the Fusion forum or the After Effects forum. That's where I would image that those experts would hang out. Blackmagification and consolidation of post is starting to hint at a more generic forum about how we work that is not about "FCPX or Not" (...hold that thought)
[Jeremy Garchow] "The rules: it has to include "FCPX", and "Debate"."
I must have missed that rule. Can we also have a rule then that all posts that are not about FCPX be deleted because they are off-topic? in other words, I'm not sure that I agree with that rule but let's go with it for now because Tim makes the rules. :)
[Jeremy Garchow] "And that's how this forum came to be and why it's still here. Yes, the subjects can expand beyond the magnetic timeline, but at the same time, the context always seems to come back to whether or not X can handle certain workflows, or not."
Good point. Perhaps we should rename it:

FCPX Workflows: The Debate

That would attract anyone using FCP X who is interested in debating the merits of various workflows. I could even argue that how FCPX runs on an iMac 5K would fall under that as well. ;-)

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 2:15:31 pm

[Steve Connor] "Or start a new forum and go there!"

Brilliant.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 12:30:25 am

Reading all the other post in the thread so far, I think you should call this forum...


42




Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 12:34:19 am

Ah, the answer to life, the universe and everything.

Tim


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 12:40:07 am

[Craig Seeman] "Reading all the other post in the thread so far, I think you should call this forum... 42"

You've found answers here?

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

Noah Kadner
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 1:10:54 am

For my $.02 simply dropping the 'or not' would be reasonable enough. It's redundant and adds a negative slant to what is generally a healthy debate about the future of post tools and the human beings using them.

Noah

FCPWORKS - FCPX Workflow
Call Box Training


Return to posts index

Ryan Holmes
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 2:14:11 am

[Noah Kadner] "For my $.02 simply dropping the 'or not' would be reasonable enough. It's redundant and adds a negative slant to what is generally a healthy debate about the future of post tools and the human beings using them."

[Shane Ross] "Are we still debating? The last few threads had nothing to do with FCS or how useful it is. And even the Adobe debate forum is dead. I mean...dead. They don't even bring up other topics. Here, there are other topics. But not all FCX related. I'd make this a general NLE debate."

[Scott Witthaus] "In my mind, as I have stated, the debate about FCPX is over, if there was ever was one. You either use it or not....If we need a debate it should be agnostic"

[John Rofrano] "there is no longer a need for a forum to debate the merits of FCP X any more then you should start one to debate the merits of Premiere Pro, Avid, Sony Vegas, etc. Maybe it's time to archive it and move on?"

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think Andrew Kimery nailed it."

It seems a theme is developing here, and one which I agree with. I'm an Adobe/Autodesk/Resolve user for most of my workflow, but I come here for the general discussion on the state of the NLE industry, not to discuss whether or not FCPX can edit footage. The debate is over (same with the "Creative Cloud" debate forum). It's a tool...either use it or don't.

[Tim Wilson] "I've also been thinking a lot about this. Here's where I'm at right now."

And I'd be remised if I didn't give a tip of the hat to Tim's initial write up. Well stated with some good points to think about, especially the "Apple doesn't care about Pros" section.

Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost


Return to posts index

Perry Trest
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 1:45:38 am

FCPX? Definitely not.

Perry Trest
POSTDIGITAL, Inc.
http://www.perrytrest.com

OS 10.9.4
Davinci Resolve 11.1 Licensed
MacPro 12core 3.33Ghz (2010)
32GB RAM
Slot 1 = GTX780 6GB GUI
Slot 2 = Cubix Xpander
Slot 3 = DeckLink SDI
Slot 4 = Nitris DX
Cubix Xpander = GTX780 6GB GPU + Caldigit eSata/USB3
Internal 6TB soft RAID-0
Euphonix Artist Color
Flanders Scientific CM170

Davinci Resolve 11 Lite
iMac 27" 2.7GHz Quadcore i5
20GB RAM
Blackmagic Mini Monitor


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 6:31:43 am

As editors, we're trained to look at stuff and remove what's not contributing to the audiences clear understanding of the material.

If, in fact, X is now actually viewed by most here as a viable choice, then the "or not" is superfluous.

And, BTW, I'd apply the same reasoning to the Creative Cloud or Not, the Debate forum.

Simplify them.

FCP X -The Debate
Creative Cloud -The Debate

Because editing for clarity and meaning is useful.

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

Michael Gissing
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 6:56:49 am

[Bill Davis] "If, in fact, X is now actually viewed by most here as a viable choice, then the "or not" is superfluous."

I disagree Bill and the fact that Scott thought my reference to Blackmagic & Adobe was pointless makes that "or not" necessary. As an editor you understand context and counter argument. Sometimes trimming the fat throws away flavor. Simplicity is not always clarity.

As editors who have adopted and seen the software develop to the point where it meets most of your needs and is superior in some aspects to alternatives, it doesn't change the fact that in many areas of the creative industries, X still isn't meeting needs and there are other NLEs that are better in many respects. The "or not" is relevant and really the only thing making debate sensible. If you want a debate forum that excludes alternative software and points of view then fine, ask Tim for "FCPX the Internal Dialog" and leave this debate forum for more expansive opinion and reasoned debate.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 5:13:52 pm

OK, some fair points.

I would ask you to consider the question of the percentage of those editors who feels it "does not meet their needs" - who actually understand the capabilities of the software - verses the percentage of those who read about it and dismissed it a while ago, establishing a view of its suitability that persists regardless of the actual facts.

Last night I took part on the 100th FCP X Grill show where Nashville editor Scott Simmonds (who cuts on AVID and Premier as well as X) was talking about how his client base is often shocked when he chooses X to do work. He implied that the perception many of his clients and collegues still carry is that X isn't a viable pro editing choice. It's only when he explains the actual capabilities of the software and how those match the project needs, that they start to accept his thinking.

So, the perception/reality gap is still very real.

I know that some don't feel that this forum name perpetuates that. I still do. But it's not the end of the world. It hasn't stopped X adoption by editors yet. And as long as I see the continuing and constantly growing participation of new folks coming here who've clearly learned and understand the software, I'm cool with it.

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

Michael Gissing
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 10:59:01 pm

[Bill Davis]"So, the perception/reality gap is still very real. "

Which is why this forum does good service to the post industry.

The common pattern for name changing seems to be when new people find the forum and say they didn't think to look in a forum with FCPX in the name. Given that Tim has stated the history behind parts of the name staying, then those of us who have to avoid the threads that belong in techniques will continue to put up with that along with bewildered newcomers who complain that they didn't think to look in this forum.

For me the debate is far from over. I am often asked to recommend software and hardware. This forum helps me to offer informed advice. There is still a gut reaction to not wanting to change paradigm and that is perfectly valid even if it stupefies long term X users. X is the only mainstream NLE that is not cross platform. Still a big issue for some. I still struggle more with X to get audio out and into another system. Trackless and roles should help but many editors do not even know how to drive this. Still a debatable issue.

xmls and changing systems rather than a complete edit & finishing tool. Standardising an xml formats versus proprietary. All still issues in my world. Plugin standards and being able to have matching plugins across NLEs (apart from subscription or not). Relying on third parties to affect interchange.

And finally big picture issues like formats, codecs frame rates. We need a debate forum but not really to debate the name. Sorry if it takes years for some to find it. Sorry if it wanders into non debate areas. Gratuitous change is what started this forum so lets just leave the name.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 23, 2014 at 4:58:48 am

[Michael Gissing] "Sometimes trimming the fat throws away flavor. Simplicity is not always clarity."

Nice.

Like when you hear that if it doesn't drive the story forward it should be cut. Not always. It might enhance the moment or the character or the relationship, or the space between. The story is the vessel that holds the moments, the characters, the beats, the drama. And they return the favor. Who serves who? It's both and not either or.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Scott Thomas
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 7:43:49 am

How about: FCPX Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Kind of ambiguous, yet smirk inducing.


Return to posts index

Tobias Heilmann-Schuricht
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 8:28:22 am

Personally I have never used this forum to gain a perspective against the use of FCPX. I have embraced and creatively cherished the magnetic timeline way too fast and too intensely that the apparent shortcomings of earlier version could have outweighed this boost to my editing process.

But I have enjoyed most of the input here as it offered a perspective on FCPX in relation to the world it lives in: OSX, Mac Products, Peripherals and of course the world all this is being used in by the people that use it.

"FCPX - all things considered" would seem like a name that does justice to the breadth of information being posted here around the subject.

Tobias

In Touch Media GmbH
Germany


Return to posts index

Mark Suszko
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 21, 2014 at 2:26:38 pm

Why not "Technology Debates"? And FCPX can certainly be a main subject. But it opens the floor to welcoming more and wider non-specific topics.

Or, my second choice title:

"Everything you know is wrong".


Return to posts index

Nicholas Kleczewski
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 23, 2014 at 4:08:37 pm

Anyone still debating the validity of FCPX needs to do us all a favor and go crawl back under the rock they came from and get on with their miserable sad existence. The rest of us can bask in the glory of evolution and the excitement of progress. That's actually me keeping it positive on the matter!

Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 23, 2014 at 5:24:55 pm

[Nicholas Kleczewski] "Anyone still debating the validity of FCPX needs to do us all a favor and go crawl back under the rock they came from and get on with their miserable sad existence."

I think we all agree that no-one is doing that anymore (well on here anyway!)


Return to posts index

Andre van Berlo
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 24, 2014 at 2:58:18 pm

How about:

NLE's and the X factor


Whatever it should be, i do agree with a name change but also see it is hard to give up an old name, some get used to it and that can be hard to let go

Andre


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 24, 2014 at 8:23:29 pm

[Andre van Berlo] "NLE's and the X factor"

That's actually kinda snazzy sounding. Like a post production Boy Band or a Hollywood nightclub I'm not cool enough to get into. haha


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 25, 2014 at 2:12:31 pm

So Tim, what's the name changing to?

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


Return to posts index

Andre van Berlo
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 26, 2014 at 6:39:30 pm

haha, thanks :-)

The way certain discussions are going here "x factor" comes to my mind. As a lot feel that someone chooses to work with an NLE despite the fact it can't do this or that. So why work with it... Must be the x factor :-)


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 26, 2014 at 7:52:34 pm

[Andre van Berlo] "As a lot feel that someone chooses to work with an NLE despite the fact it can't do this or that."

When you find one that does everything, please let us know! ;-)

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


Return to posts index

Andre van Berlo
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 27, 2014 at 7:08:40 am

Haha, well it does all I need it to do, does that count?


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: FCPX Dogs, New Names
on Nov 25, 2014 at 3:30:38 pm

FCP X: Design and Paradigm

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

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