-
A special Thank You to Chris Kenny
-
I’m not angry, just a little tired of certain patterns. It’s pretty clear there are some people who are really angry and unhappy with FCP X and Apple. I’m not personally thrilled with it, either. I wish Apple had kept FCS3 going for a while. I wish they had handled the entire affair differently.
But they didn’t.
I actually think it’s great that a lot of people have made a fuss about all this. I think it’s made Apple take notice and I think that’ll benefit FCP X users (and maybe even FCS3 users) in the short and medium run.
So, Apple messed up. We know that.
I think that point has been made time and again here, and that eventually making the same point to the same people becomes not useful. I personally understand that some people are incredibly angry, and not unjustified in it. I haven’t seen anyone arguing that people shouldn’t feel angry or let down. So, accepting that, I just wish we could move on in a more productive way, and not rehash it.
I’ve been working some with FCP X and find there are things I like and things I don’t and things I think I can get used to. I’d like to engage in some learning and contributing here in the FCP X forum. So far all I’ve figured out is how to copy selected effects from one clip to another without having to copy all of them, but I hope to be useful more than once.
I apologize if you misunderstood the Heinlein quote, or if I misused it. No intention of calling anyone names. The point of that quote is that some people can only see things one way, and it’s a waste of time to try and convince them otherwise. I fall back on it sometimes when I feel I’ve hit a brick wall. I guess I will reconsider that, as we know how things in type on the Internet don’t always come across as we intend.
Heinlein, btw, is a very interesting character, if you’ve never read his stuff. To a kid in the 50’s and early 60’s it was really eye-opening. As an adult I don’t agree with all his personal philosophies but owe him a big debt for stretching my mind way back then. I don’t know that it’s ever regained it’s original shape.
Best,
John -
yeah, I always knew I was supposed to read heinlein’s stuff, but did I get around to it?
I just looked him up – I’d forgotten he was Starship Troopers – I was an Asimov/Aldiss/Clarke kiddie.[John Godwin] “So far all I’ve figured out is how to copy selected effects from one clip to another without having to copy all of them,”
hey – that’s something. Ubsdell’s ploughing through it on the other forum too. He fell over on the lack of ganging behaviour. I think a lot of that stuff will come back – its just a question of whether they can get it done quickly enough. He made the point that for stuff like eyeball matching dailies or selects or whatever – you absolutely need a source monitor – I think between ganging, eyeball matching and multicam, they’re going to have to find room to get the source monitor back into that interface. that’s my own 2 cent.http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[John Godwin] “I guess I will reconsider that, as we know how things in type on the Internet don’t always come across as we intend.”
Fair enough.
Scott Sheriff
Director
https://www.sstdigitalmedia.com“If you think it’s expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.” —Red Adair
Where were you on 6/21?
-
I read them all. I can still quote Clarke’s Law and the 3 Laws of Robotics. Heinlein’s slang is getting a little dated but his tech and human nature concepts and just the way he carries you along with his style still make for a great read..
Maybe those guys taught me that the only certainty is change.
I think the single viewer is because Apple designed FCP X with laptops and eventually tablets in mind. And touch control. I miss the source viewer myself and the idea of editing with waving hands and fingers sounds like a great concept and a questionable reality. If you’ve played with iMovie on a tablet you’ll know what I mean.
Best,
John -
[John Godwin] “Maybe those guys taught me that the only certainty is change.”
That is not necessarily true. Some things are at the peak of their evolution, and can’t really be improved on. Things like the bicycle, firearms, and the internal combustion engine are all examples. Most all touted changes to these items are really nothing more than cosmetics, materials, or external changes. The basic working design of these items hasn’t changed in decades.
Scott Sheriff
Director
https://www.sstdigitalmedia.com“If you think it’s expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.” —Red Adair
Where were you on 6/21?
-
Clarke’s Law:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
Change “scientist” to “editor” and remove the unintentional ageism..
As a bonus, Clarke’s Laws 2 & 3:
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
To me, the basics of editing are to take slices of imagery and sound and rearrange and enhance them in a way that tells a story and/or communicates information usually with a point of view. How you achieve that technically is a detail dependent on your media, technology and resources, and your specific ability to use those tools.
On a different note, nobody said that change is always good. Just that there is always change.
Best,
John -
[Tomislav Rupic] “As much as I was disappointed when I first opened FCPX, I believe in Apple and that they
will do their best to make this no1 pro editing software.”No offense, but I don’t believe this for a second. Everything they would need to do to make this a #1 PRO editing software would take a MINIMUM of 2 years, and a load of resources that Apple will not be willing to dedicate to competing with the likes of Avid and even Adobe.
Yes, FCPX is a new product, but that means it has the long road of maturity still ahead of it. The other 2 companies have a hefty head start. Apple made this choice to jump from #1 to #3 (or possibly lower) with FCPX.
COULD Apple do it if they wanted to? With that kind of money and resource, of course they could. They did it once already. But there are not likely to use that much resources on this product. Especially not to compete in the pro market. They can make much more money dedicating those resources elsewhere, or to further build FCP into the everyman video editing machine. We will almost certainly see an IOS version of it appear in the next year. This would make them gobs more money than trying to match the other “Big A’s.” There just isn’t enough up side.
As one of the major detractors of this move, I’m not saying Apple’s move is not a smart move. I’m not even saying that I blame them. But I honestly don’t see Apple ever developing FCPX into something that will be used to cut feature films on. Probably less than 1% of us actually do this, but it still seems to be the gold standard when it comes to classifying an editing system as a “pro” system.
Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up