FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCPX Freelance

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
FCPX Freelance
on Nov 2, 2017 at 7:16:43 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Nov 2, 2017 at 7:32:09 pm

Interesting FCPco post:

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/news/2014-upwork-names-final-cut-pro-x-in-t...

However, Upwork is a site where you list your services for hire. So this isn't an indication of the actual amount of work. Merely the number of people available. The rating is for year-over-year growth. Yet, if you do a quick search in the US only, the total listings are actually 3X for Premiere Pro over FCPX. Worldwide, it's 5X for Premiere Pro.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Loren Risker
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 3, 2017 at 5:49:15 pm

In my experience of freelancing in the San Francisco Bay Area, production houses, or anyone with a dedicated video team is still firmly locked into Adobe. Every now and then I'll get an FCPX only job, but it's rare. Most work I get doesn't care what I use since I am the video team. I know it's been said plenty, but it's not really FCPX vs Premiere, it's FCPX vs the Creative Cloud. Until there's truly a workflow that doesn't involve painfully waiting for an Adobe app to launch, Premiere is going to dominate. It just seems easier, even if it takes more time.

-------------
OutOfFocus.TV - Music Videos 24/7


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 4, 2017 at 12:07:57 pm

[Loren Risker] "Until there's truly a workflow that doesn't involve painfully waiting for an Adobe app to launch"

What does that mean? That in your opinion no workflow can do without the one or other Adobe app?

- RK

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


Return to posts index


Loren Risker
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 4, 2017 at 3:39:17 pm

Projects can, but I've yet to go a month without needing Photoshop or illustrator.

-------------
OutOfFocus.TV - Music Videos 24/7


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 4, 2017 at 5:23:33 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Nov 4, 2017 at 5:23:56 pm

[Loren Risker] "but I've yet to go a month without needing Photoshop or illustrator."

Well, those are what I personally have the Affinity apps for and am extremely happy for it. They really show what performance is and at the same time what horribly ancient code Adobe apps obviously run off of… never mind the "ransomware" aspect of it all. But to each his own.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Loren Risker
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 4, 2017 at 7:04:01 pm

That Affinity app looks really cool. Would love to replace all Adobe apps and ready to just ship in an instant.

-------------
OutOfFocus.TV - Music Videos 24/7


Return to posts index


Noah Kadner
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 4, 2017 at 7:41:18 pm

Also check out Autodesk Graphic (formerly iDraw) for simpler vector jobs you might have done previously in Illustrator.

Noah

FCPWORKS - FCPX Workflow
FCP Exchange - FCPX Workshops
XinTwo - FCPX Training


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 5, 2017 at 5:54:11 pm

[Loren Risker] "That Affinity app looks really cool."

Cool looking is one thing. SPEED and modern, efficient code is another.

Just for sh***'n'giggles I performed a simple test/comparison a while back to compare the difference… the result being:







That, for me, is more than just cool looking. But rather, if you think "time is money", then money in the bank. Next to about 50 additional bucks a month more in fact.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 5, 2017 at 5:11:19 am

[Oliver Peters] "Yet, if you do a quick search in the US only, the total listings are actually 3X for Premiere Pro over FCPX. Worldwide, it's 5X for Premiere Pro."
I am always fascinated by claims such as this without any backup. Where are you
searching? Google? Yahoo? Jobs.com? Making general claims such as
'there are 3x the total numbers of jobs for Premiere over FCP X'
with absolutely no qualifiers or supporting data seems.......possibly
a bit misleading, even if that wasn't your intention.

In my admittedly 'anecdotal' evidence searching for video jobs, I have not found the same thing
you seem to have found. As a simple way to test this, I typed in 'Video Editor' in Indeed.com.
The following attached screenshots are the first page of results







Interesting notes. Most mention both Adobe and FCP. A Some mention only OTHER
Adobe apps such as Photoshop being used in conjunction with FCP, instead of with
Premiere. And a lot mention Mac OS X for some reason. But there certainly is not any
3 or 5 times preference of Adobe over FCP that I can see. Again, it's just one search and
means nothing in the larger scheme of things, but this is more of what I am seeing......clients
asking for those who know several different programs and not just 'Adobe'.

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 5, 2017 at 1:39:05 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Nov 5, 2017 at 4:27:42 pm

[Gabe Strong] "I am always fascinated by claims such as this without any backup."

This is not a claim without back-up. This comes from a summary on the Upwork site, since that's the only site this thread discussion was related to. I did a search on Upwork filtered for Final Cut Pro X and Premiere Pro, either US only or worldwide and that's were the numbers come from. See my response to Robin for screen grabs. These numbers are based on people who have decided to list themselves with Upwork and identify these skills.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 5, 2017 at 8:33:27 am

[Oliver Peters] "The rating is for year-over-year growth. Yet, if you do a quick search in the US only, the total listings are actually 3X for Premiere Pro over FCPX. Worldwide, it's 5X for Premiere Pro."

Erm… you said it yourself, "The rating is for year-over-year growth", in which case the present state of affairs is irrelevant, since this is pointing to the future.

That being an aside from me personally most certainly not seeing a 5:1(??!) ratio by any stretch either. Definitely not WORLDWIDE either way. So either that's complete hyperbole or just very poorly researched.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 5, 2017 at 1:53:56 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Nov 5, 2017 at 4:32:27 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "That being an aside from me personally most certainly not seeing a 5:1(??!) ratio by any stretch either. Definitely not WORLDWIDE either way. So either that's complete hyperbole or just very poorly researched."

Found where I got to the numbers. See these screen grabs:





So 18,197 (Premiere Pro) versus 3,645 (Final Cut Pro X) would be a fivefold difference in favor of Premiere Pro.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 5, 2017 at 4:47:51 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Nov 5, 2017 at 5:02:57 pm

Sorry, still don't see how that in any way contradicts the claim that it's one of the fastest-growing skills for freelancers, which is what the link is all about. Nothing else. It appears you are trying to argue a point that was never actually made.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 5, 2017 at 6:57:00 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "still don't see how that in any way contradicts"

You challenged my 5:1 ratio. I pointed out where those numbers came from.

[Robin S. Kurz] "It appears you are trying to argue a point that was never actually made"

No, I'm merely pointing out that the actual raw numbers are smaller for FCPX and, as such, have less meaning than the headline implies. Hypothetically, if you grow from 1 to 5, that's 500%, which sounds super. But if you only grow from 100 to 150, as a percentage of growth, it's less impressive sounding.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 5, 2017 at 7:32:38 pm

Are those actual jobs available? It appears to be
freelancers available, which is a different thing entirely.

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 5, 2017 at 8:06:33 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Nov 5, 2017 at 9:13:19 pm

[Gabe Strong] "Are those actual jobs available? It appears to be
freelancers available, which is a different thing entirely."


I don't know why I have to do everyone's homework for them. ☺

Go to the site and browse. Upwork lists available freelancers. It's no different than fiverr.com. The survey simply states an upward trend in freelancer listings with those skills. A top 10 list based on percentage of growth from last year in freelance skills listings. If you go do a search by jobs, today it comes up as 66 for FCPX and 391 for Premiere Pro.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 5, 2017 at 7:43:40 pm

To further clarify, it appears that we may have
been 'talking past' each other. It appears, I
thought you were talking about something
different than you were. Freelancers who
self identify with a certain skill is of more
interest to companies looking to hire someone.
It is the 'supply' side as opposed to the 'demand'
side, which is what I was looking at.

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 5, 2017 at 8:08:51 pm

[Gabe Strong] "It is the 'supply' side as opposed to the 'demand' side, which is what I was looking at."

Sorry if there was a miscommunication, but I thought that was pretty clear in the first post. No harm, no foul.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Trevor Asquerthian
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 5, 2017 at 8:57:33 pm

In the very small world of freelancing in London for 30 years, from tape through Avid, Lightworks, Sony Xpri, Quantel & Adobe, I can count the number of fcpx jobs I’ve been offered on one finger .

That’s an infinite number more than the Resolve jobs I’ve been offered, mind, and I’ve used Resolve pretty much weekly over the past few years. Plus I really like bits if FCPx but there is zero call for it, from clients, in my market



Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 6, 2017 at 9:43:10 am
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Nov 6, 2017 at 9:43:26 am

[Trevor Asquerthian] "I can count the number of fcpx jobs I’ve been offered on one finger ."

And then I'm in London a few times a year for FCP X jobs. Go figure.

And I guess the BBC switching to FCP X for news globally is one really FAT finger then, too.

Solipsism is a strange animal.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 6, 2017 at 6:29:18 pm

Much the same experience. Fcpx might be used in bbc for some productions but for most long form stuff it’s avid or premiere. For now.

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 6, 2017 at 8:49:39 pm

[Tom Sefton] "Fcpx might be used in bbc for some productions but for most long form stuff it’s avid or premiere"

It's my understanding that the BBC, like most other large media enterprises, doesn't have one single NLE that's used across the board. Each operating unit can decide what works best for them. Even within a unit, one location might have something different than another. I don't know exactly what the BBC's deployment of FCPX is, but it generally sounds like on-site news editing, such as in OB vans and not necessarily back in the news department. I could have that completely wrong, so maybe someone with direct knowledge can chime in.

In any case, even if the BBC is using it, that wouldn't necessarily affect freelance numbers (the subject of this discussion), since I would presume those editors hold staff jobs.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 6, 2017 at 8:56:33 pm

exactly - individual production companies that are making programs for the bbc are the ones that use freelancers in the most part and they choose what fits them best. For the majority it is still avid and adobe. Fcpx is used but in the main by news and some sports.

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 7, 2017 at 8:17:09 am

It's a common misunderstanding that the BBC "only" uses FCP X for news and sports. BBC Factual exclusively uses FCP X for long-form documentary and other factual work. And 14 regional production companies (any kind of programming) are making the switch from FCP7 to FCP X as we speak. I will be visiting them next month.

- Ronny


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 7, 2017 at 4:17:23 pm

[Ronny Courtens] "BBC Factual exclusively uses FCP X for long-form documentary and other factual work."

Good info. This will provide a further insight into how BBC operates:

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2006/12/17/the-bbcs-digital-media-initia...

I wrote this in 2006 when BBC Factual and Learning was featured in Apple's FCP videos. This was part of the now-defunct Creative Desktop initiative. However, the rationale then is still applicable today and a good reason why FCPX makes sense for them.

As a general rule, the BBC usually cannot promote any given product that they use, because of legal guidelines. So they might use a ton of a particular product, but that info isn't officially publicized.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 8, 2017 at 11:24:34 am

FWIW, the statement "The BBC has globally switched to FCP X for news" came from someone higher up the chain at the BBC that I just recently spoke to in Amsterdam. So that was not an assumption or guess on my part. It's straight from the lion's mouth if you will and I have no reason to believe that person had any reason to lie to me or exaggerate.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 7, 2017 at 1:14:54 pm

The article is saying that freelancers are adding X skills to their profiles faster than other NLEs on that particular site.

That's good news for X period.

As far as freelancers over all, if X has sold 2 million seats how many of those people use it to freelance. I would say just about all of them. I don't know many people in the biz that don't do some type of freelancing.

Unless Pr has sold 10 million seats can't be 5 x 1 overall.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 7, 2017 at 3:07:18 pm

[Tony West] "As far as freelancers over all, if X has sold 2 million seats how many of those people use it to freelance. I would say just about all of them. I don't know many people in the biz that don't do some type of freelancing.
"


Id have to imagine a good portion of those reported seats of any NLE come from one man band bedroom type editors..lots of people not particularly making money off editing. With the cost of entry these days I dont think its too far fetched t think a good chunk of sales goes to hobbyists.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 7, 2017 at 3:09:48 pm

[Neil Goodman] "Id have to imagine a good portion of those reported seats of any NLE come from one man band bedroom type editors..lots of people not particularly making money off editing."

Also, when you review the listings, you'll see that a lot of these freelancers list multiple skills, so Premiere Pro AND FCPX. There's a lot of overlap in the numbers.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 7, 2017 at 11:33:36 pm

[Neil Goodman] "Id have to imagine a good portion of those reported seats of any NLE come from one man band bedroom type editors..lots of people not particularly making money off editing. With the cost of entry these days I dont think its too far fetched t think a good chunk of sales goes to hobbyists."

Well, technically *I* am a one-man-band editor working out of a bedroom.

I’m currently working on 5 videos for 4 clients with operations stretched from the east coast to the west coast as well as my own small personal global initiatives.

And I AM very particularly making money doing it.

I can (and greatly enjoy) doing it from my spare bedroom. Or a hotel room, a cafe, an airplane, or wherever else I choose.

And sorry, but for the clients that rely on me for my understanding of their particular operations, project needs and preferences could care less where my editorial “seat” is located.

That is increasingly going to be the new “normal” IMO.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 8, 2017 at 12:44:36 am

[Bill Davis] "Well, technically *I* am a one-man-band editor working out of a bedroom.

I’m currently working on 5 videos for 4 clients with operations stretched from the east coast to the west coast as well as my own small personal global initiatives.

And I AM very particularly making money doing it. "


Bill,

My post wasnt a dig at people working from home. Wish I could do it too. Not sure where you took that from my original post and wasnt directed at anyone here.

I was just pointing out, that lots of people buy editing software - who aren't editors or have no interest in doing it professionally for money.

Im talking about your neighbors kids making skateing videos, the youtube v logger with 20 subscribers, etc. People wanting to make a picture slideshow for their friends wedding. Will a handfull of them eventually get into editing...maybe?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 8, 2017 at 8:23:33 am

[Neil Goodman] "Im talking about your neighbors kids making skateing videos, the youtube v logger with 20 subscribers, etc. People wanting to make a picture slideshow for their friends wedding. Will a handfull of them eventually get into editing...maybe?"

Curious as to why folks in those “not for profit” operations decided to part with $300-400 bucks when there are plenty of capable cheap or free alternatives - but let’s imagine, say a full third (600,000) of the X base just wanted to toss their money at Apple with no expectation of a monetary return, it would probably be equally interesting to determine the percentage of the Adobe Subscribers base who pay their monthly $XX and never edit a frame of video for money.

Wonder which system harbors the most “have it but don’t generate a penny from it” practioners - folks who, as you say - someday might decide to try to make a buck at it?

We’ll likely never know.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 8, 2017 at 3:03:57 pm

[Bill Davis] "but let’s imagine, say a full third (600,000) of the X base just wanted to toss their money at Apple with no expectation of a monetary return, it would probably be equally interesting to determine the percentage of the Adobe Subscribers base who pay their monthly $XX and never edit a frame of video for money."

I bet it would be pretty even.


Return to posts index

Gabriel Spaulding
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 18, 2017 at 1:23:26 am

"Wonder which system harbors the most “have it but don’t generate a penny from it” practitioners."

Considering the fact that a Creative Cloud subscription comes with all of the Adobe apps there are certainly a huge number of subscribers who do not use and likely have never even opened Premiere Pro. Conversely, Final Cut Pro X is a standalone purchase, making it much more unlikely that someone would purchase it specifically and then not use it. I rent Adobe software every month and despite my subscription including at least 24 different apps (shown in the Creative Cloud app) I only ever use 4 of them —and none of them are Premiere Pro. So while I do pay to use Adobe software for paid work am I being counted as a tick in the Premiere Pro box? How many people use either of these apps for paid work is of course very difficult to determine, but given the nature of the different purchase models it seems to me that the a la carte option would by default provide the most ambiguity.

Gabriel Spaulding
Creator & Director of ACE Enterprizes
Videographer | Video Editor | Motion Designer

How Can We Help You Tell Your Story?
http://www.aceenterprizes.com


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 20, 2017 at 2:29:40 pm

[Gabriel Spaulding] "I rent Adobe software every month and despite my subscription including at least 24 different apps (shown in the Creative Cloud app) I only ever use 4 of them —and none of them are Premiere Pro. So while I do pay to use Adobe software for paid work am I being counted as a tick in the Premiere Pro box? "

My thoughts exactly (although I do use premiere when it's the only option). Plus, I don't want my monthly being used to develop the 20-odd software in the rest of the CC package that I don't use. Selfish, yes, but I could care less about the majority of CC for my money.

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 21, 2017 at 3:59:51 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Plus, I don't want my monthly being used to develop the 20-odd software in the rest of the CC package that I don't use."

I would highly doubt that Adobe cares what you want. To them you're just another subscriber whether you use all 20 programs or none.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 21, 2017 at 7:42:22 pm

[greg janza] "I would highly doubt that Adobe cares what you want."

Never said they do. That's why companies I do work for pay the monthly, not me.

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 8, 2017 at 11:36:43 am

[Neil Goodman] "the youtube v logger with 20 subscribers"

… or any one of the largest, most well known "vloggers" that YouTube has to offer up. Such as Neistat, Marques Brownlee any many many more making millions with as many subscribers. Go figure. Are THEY "editors" or do the live up to everyone's so distinct idea of "PRO"?

Either way I'd say anyone actually putting more relevance and value into what feature A, B or C Hollywood edited on and none into these "just some YT vloggers" is making a huge mistake in terms of relevance for the global market in the long term and might want to rethink his use of such a high horse. 😏

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 8, 2017 at 3:11:34 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Such as Neistat, Marques Brownlee any many many more making millions with as many subscribers. Go figure. Are THEY "editors" or do the live up to everyone's so distinct idea of "PRO"?
"


Id say those guys are Pro because they're making money. That's why I specifically said the v logger with 20 subscribers.
not millions.

[Robin S. Kurz] "
Either way I'd say anyone actually putting more relevance and value into what feature A, B or C Hollywood edited on and none into these "just some YT vloggers" is making a huge mistake in terms of relevance for the global market in the long term and might want to rethink his use of such a high horse. 😏"


Again , completely missing the point as usual. I simply stated that there are without a doubt a lot of people who buy editing software that never wind up making money off of editing, and those people are counted as "seats". Not sure how that turns into the relavance of hollywood workflows going forward but keeping beating that horse buddy.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 10, 2017 at 4:17:49 pm

[Bill Davis] "Curious as to why folks in those “not for profit” operations decided to part with $300-400 bucks when there are plenty of capable cheap or free alternatives -"

Maybe the free/cheaper alternatives don't meet their needs? If you head over to DVXUser or DVinfo (or even the digital video forum on Macrumors) you'll see a lot of hobbyists/enthusiasts that are more than willing to pay for the tools they want to use even though their projects aren't intended to be money makers. The free version of Resolve is obviously a compelling target, but if someone's more comfortable working with X then they'll probably think the cost of entry is worth it. Not long ago this same category of people were paying about the same amount for Final Cut Express or even more for FCP Legend.

[Bill Davis] "it would probably be equally interesting to determine the percentage of the Adobe Subscribers base who pay their monthly $XX and never edit a frame of video for money."

Isn't there an old joke about PPro being a 'free' NLE that came bundled with AE? 😉

Joking aside, if someone prefers Adobe's tools then they are probably okay paying the annual fee. I mean, I think I'm slated to spend more annually on my rock climbing hobby than I do on CC, and rock climbing certainly doesn't earn me any money.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Are THEY "editors" or do the live up to everyone's so distinct idea of "PRO"?"

If they are anything like the YouTubers I've worked with they wouldn't call themselves editors even though they might edit their own videos. To that point, I haven't see either one use the title of "editor" to label themselves. I think it's normal to draw distinctions between being able to do something, being able to get paid to do something, and being able to specialize in something. For example, on many of my smaller projects I not only edit I also do sound design, gfx, mixing, grading, etc., but I don't label myself a sound designer or graphic artist. I'm an editor and I can certainly do those other things if need be, but speaking in generalities, I think it would be pretty egotistical of me to assume I can do them as quickly and effectively as someone that's been doing it all day, every day for years and years.


[Robin S. Kurz] "Either way I'd say anyone actually putting more relevance and value into what feature A, B or C Hollywood edited on and none into these "just some YT vloggers" is making a huge mistake in terms of relevance for the global market in the long term and might want to rethink his use of such a high horse. 😏"

Global market in terms of what? And do you think that FCP.co is up on a high horse as well with their focus on films and TV shows?


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 10, 2017 at 5:10:59 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "If they are anything like the YouTubers I've worked with they wouldn't call themselves editors even though they might edit their own videos."

Funny thing is, many of these "YouTubers" videos have better production quality than some of the reality TV crap out there. But they are called "YouTubers" and "hobbyists" while the reality TV is on the high-pedestal of "broadcast editor"!

and so it goes....

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 10, 2017 at 5:41:05 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Funny thing is, many of these "YouTubers" videos have better production quality than some of the reality TV crap out there."

I completely agree. My two teenage kids have shown me their favorite youtubers (Rudy Mancuso and Liza Koshy being two of the most popular) and while it's not my kind of programming I would argue that these youtube stars are making very high quality videos with great editing techniques. The youtubers have created a style all their own and it's very effective for the audience that they're serving. And naturally, when you average over 4 million views per video you're obviously doing something very well.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 10, 2017 at 7:24:01 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Funny thing is, many of these "YouTubers" videos have better production quality than some of the reality TV crap out there. But they are called "YouTubers" and "hobbyists" while the reality TV is on the high-pedestal of "broadcast editor"!

and so it goes...."


You are conflating some things. No one is equating YouTuber w/hobbyist, just that lots of hobbyists are YouTubers. For every Freddie Wong or iJustine or RWJ there are literally millions of other users that are, well, very, very pedestrian. Taken holistically content that makes it to theaters, streaming services, TV/cable, etc. is higher quality than what's uploaded to YT. Hell, even YouTube keeps trying to shake off it's lower-budget image with things like the YouTube Channel Initiative (now defunct), YouTube Spaces, YouTube Red, etc.,. It's just the way it is.

It's also a reason so many successful YouTubers try and go beyond YouTube. For example, not long ago I was working with a very successful YouTuber on a documentary and I asked why they didn't make it a web series. I thought the topic of the do would be great for that format, plus they already had a huge online audience to tap into. They said they'd already been there/done that and that they wanted to take on a bigger challenge. It's was part of a bigger plan at their production company to prove that they could do more than just 'web videos'. They were setting their sights on bigger budgets, more prestige, and a chance to do projects that wouldn't do well on YouTube.

I started working in digital/New Media in 2006 and did that full time until 2012. Even though I've mixed in some unscripted broadcast/cable shows and indie doc work the majority of my work has been in Digital. And thankfully 'Digital' has become a bigger thing because working on it in 2006 certainly didn't have the same ring to it that it does today. My Digital gigs ran the gambit from bare bones, run-n-gun to working out of giant production trucks and TV studios. But, generally speaking, the expectations (and pressure) have always been higher when I've been doing broadcast/cable work. "Don't worry about it, it's just for the web" is a phrase I've heard over and over again. If you are distributing via regular YouTube, Vimeo, or your own site the deliverables and QC are totally self-determined.

Finally, LOL, trust me, editing reality TV doesn't get you put on any sort of pedestal. LOL. I've been to industry events where the presumption by the panelists was that everyone working in unscripted TV really wanted to work in scripted TV since scripted TV was 'real' editing and unscripted was just unadulterated crap. Of course this was years ago before there was a resurgence in quality unscripted TV (and the later re-branding of unscripted into sub genres like reality TV, docu-series, docu-follow, docu-drama, etc.,). These days I think theres a little more respect for unscripted projects, though scripted (both TV and film) is still seen as the pinnacle of the art/craft (in some ways I agree, in others I don't).

But I digress.

TL;DR, There's stratification in our industry, just like there's stratification in every industry, and I don't know why people try to pretend there isn't. It's like saying there's no difference at all in the overall level of talent, monetization, prestige, etc., between the Arena Football League, the CFL and the NFL.

And so it goes...


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 10, 2017 at 7:58:33 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I've been to industry events where the presumption by the panelists was that everyone working in unscripted TV really wanted to work in scripted TV since scripted TV was 'real' editing and unscripted was just unadulterated crap."

I can totally understand the preference for working in scripted tv but not just because it is more respected within the industry. Editing non-fiction or "reality" tv is hard, real real hard. I spent years editing that style of television programming and I'm currently wrapping up work on a 24:30 non-fiction medical show which was almost completely unscripted (except for the show host stand ups and the tease vo's) and it was crafted in the traditional documentary style of building the story through interview bites alone. There is nothing easy about editing that style.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 10, 2017 at 8:31:56 pm

[greg janza] "I can totally understand the preference for working in scripted tv but not just because it is more respected within the industry. Editing non-fiction or "reality" tv is hard, real real hard. "

In some cases, unscripted TV show editors actually get paid more than those working in scripted TV.

I agree on the hard work aspect. Just like with documentaries, you are trying to mold a story from the footage. Definitely editor as writer.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 10, 2017 at 10:14:54 pm
Last Edited By Andrew Kimery on Nov 10, 2017 at 10:15:09 pm

I'm reluctant to label one genre as harder than the other because so much can vary on a case by case basis (plus if you are working on large Hollywood productions there is a lot of pressure and stress that doesn't exist when you aren't in that white hot spotlight). I've heard people say film is a director's medium, tv is a writer's medium and documentary is an editor's medium and I'd agree with that. I think doc/unscripted certainly requires the editor to be more involved in the producing/writing aspect more than in scripted. I'm starting to see more and more editors with producing and/or writing credits on their docs and not just 'edited by'.

I've also only worked on a handful of small scripted projects so I'm probably not the best one to judge both experiences side by side.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 11, 2017 at 1:19:46 pm

[Andrew Kimery] " I've heard people say film is a director's medium, tv is a writer's medium and documentary is an editor's medium and I'd agree with that."

Agree 100%. Cutting a doc now and this statement couldn't be more true.

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 8, 2017 at 12:02:07 am

[Neil Goodman] "With the cost of entry these days I dont think its too far fetched t think a good chunk of sales goes to hobbyists"

I think that's really good bet. But I think it's also a mixed bag. I see a lot of video pros, who aren't editors (directors, DPs, etc.) own FCPX, just because they do a little editing from time to time. I also see pro editors who own it as part of their "software kit". They might use Premiere or Media Composer for the "heavy lifting", but use FCPX for the fast assembly jobs. Then you have places that have deployed it within a company or department. So it's probably a much broader cross-section of total users than any other NLE can claim, including FCP "legacy".

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 8, 2017 at 12:49:30 am

Totally agree with you, all my DP friends edit some of their own stuff (for better or worse), and director friends, etc.

I just think people throw these numbers around too often without thinking of all the variables.


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 8, 2017 at 4:14:11 am

[Neil Goodman] "I just think people throw these numbers around too often without thinking of all the variables."

It's also important to keep in mind that the source of this info is a startup company that no one that I know uses or has even heard of. These stats may or may not be true but a more accurate gauge of FCPX usage and adoption is the marketplace that you live in. As a previous post stated, in the Bay Area FCPX has been adopted by a small number of companies. And since it's been nearly seven years since it's release, the notion of an upward trend in adoption of FCPX professionally seems unlikely.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 7, 2017 at 3:07:46 pm

[Tony West] "Unless Pr has sold 10 million seats can't be 5 x 1 overall."

My 5:1 ratio pertains only to the numbers on their site, as I pointed out in the beginning and 2 days ago.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: FCPX Freelance
on Nov 9, 2017 at 5:23:33 am

[Oliver Peters] "[Tony West] "Unless Pr has sold 10 million seats can't be 5 x 1 overall."

My 5:1 ratio pertains only to the numbers on their site, as I pointed out in the beginning and 2 days ago.
"


I know, that's why I said "overall", which is more important than just that site.


Return to posts index

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