-
Apple Insider says FCP 8 was DONE when they killed it? WOW.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “sheer brilliance again bill – you are shining with a special light now.
Excellent, good to see you’re focused on critiquing peoples ideas rather than their personalities! 🙂
why does anyone need to aspire to the craft of anything? I can be a moron with an excel sheet right right? I don’t know excel sheets but that’s no problem yes? I should build dams Bill. Or maybe I’m a bicyclist and I can be a trucker right? Why don’t I try to put up brick walls? I’ll pick it up won’t I?
WHO NEEDS PEOPLE WHO KNOW HOW TO DO THINGS REALLY?
Bill, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart – your arguments are awful with regard to the reverence and furtherance of specific human skills.
I’m just sorry you weren’t an architect, and then we could have some real fun with the production of our buildings.
your arguments are the worst bill – they are literally the worst.
they denigrate any craft and any skill.
Your arguments are a complete and total disgrace.
“Okay then.
You know, maybe you are right – and I am wrong. What say we do a test. Let’s outlaw amateurs!
We can get committees together to decide who’s “good enough” to do stuff. And nobody else can play. Will that be OK?
If you’re not a concert level pianist, you shouldn’t be allowed to own a piano. If the art jury says you can’t draw – no pencils for your home.
You think my argument is “awful?” Pot, kettle, dude.
Here’s why.
That you can’t tell the difference between the construction of a publicly occupied building where human lives are at risk – and a freaking VIDEO production – then you have larger issues than we can address here.
Here’s your view in a nutshell, Andreas…
If someone isn’t totally, fully professional in everything they do – to your arbitrary standard – they are nothing – and they shouldn’t even try.
BS, dude. Total BS.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
[Bill Davis] “One primary story in Outliers if you recall, was how Bill Gates “luck” in having his mom on the school committee and in a position to get “time share” on a terminal that let Gates gain experience with computers earlier than his peers. Yes, he had the brainpower and talent, but it was also ACCESS to the technology that drove his career.
Same brainpower – no access – and Bill Gates is probably a successful guy, but not the worlds richest guy.
Now you have literally a MILLION people gaining video editing experience. So the group who will take it seriously and excel will come from a much broader pool than before.”
I think where you and Gladwell differ is how you define excellence. You seem to be suggesting that there’s an absolute standard, but outliers by definition are measured by a relative standard against the group as a whole. If everyone could run a four-minute mile, it wouldn’t be special. The outlier would be someone who could run a mile in three minutes.
Gates is an interesting example. Look at all the millions of people who have had increased access to and experience with computers since him. The world is not suddenly full of people who have had his kind of impact, in part because it wasn’t Gate’s absolute access that mattered. His relative access — the fact that very few others had the kind of access that he did — was the source of his advantage.
As an aside, I think the absolute approach you seem to be advocating doesn’t account for progress. You’re looking at the legions of people on the bottom end of the market with new access to tools who are now able to execute the fundamentals of the craft — but you’re ignoring the people on the top of the market who are currently advancing the state of the art.
I’m not saying that the people coming in on the bottom of the market will never grow; I am saying that they don’t have the kind of unique advantages Gladwell believes drive outperformance. Democratization and outperformance are unrelated concepts.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “I think where you and Gladwell differ is how you define excellence. You seem to be suggesting that there’s an absolute standard, but outliers by definition are measured by a relative standard against the group as a whole. If everyone could run a four-minute mile, it wouldn’t be special. The outlier would be someone who could run a mile in three minutes.
Gates is an interesting example. Look at all the millions of people who have had increased access to and experience with computers since him. The world is not suddenly full of people who have had his kind of impact, in part because it wasn’t Gate’s absolute access that mattered. His relative access — the fact that very few others had the kind of access that he did — was the source of his advantage”
I would also add that Gates’ early computer access–or for that matter, Steve Jobs coming of age at the epicenter of computer industry–is in no way an analog with what’s happening with FCP X. Cheap editing has been around for well over a decade, and NLE ownership is only one small part of film/video making. For that matter, camera access is only a small part of the process. Over the last two decades, this has gotten a lot easier, and people like Richard Rodriguez have prospered well. But good film and video still takes hard work. Putting training wheels on a low-priced NLE is just NOT akin to giving someone early access to a world-changing power that few others have access to.
-
ok, because I’m lazy I’ll put up the reply I gave you in the below thread – we were talking about much the same stuff, and it puts across my point of view pretty well, your quotes are from the thread below this, but it works OK as a reply here.
—–
look bill, relative to this debate forum, my reply is that this is bad software made for the wrong reasons.
Histrionic defences of epochal change in technology and social organisation do not alter that fact.
[Bill Davis] “And next to them you’ll find a camcorder. A TV set. And a laptop computer that shipped with free editing software.
If you can’t see the change represented by that – you might explore whether you possibly have some “Industry-insider” blinders on.
“I see the the same things Bill – but I’m not going ga-ga over it. As I said – you’re proposing the same kind of casual skills usage popularised by the desktop publishing explosion. Anyone could make a badly designed flier as a result, now they can make a badly produced ad for the dog kennel, as I believe your original example posited. Good luck to them. Thats fine – it allows them to make low utility stuff that they would have had to pay for – that’s dandy.
On the other hand you have the british director of… monsters was it called? pushed the whole thing out of the adobe suite. Got enormous acclaim and attention. And this after an astonishing track record with the beeb pushing out unbelievable post for historical docos.
So those are two things bill right – they are both dependent on transformative tool dissemination change. means, price and processing power.
my point is that we have seen this, in a very measurable way, before. People disinterested with typography remained disinterested by typography thirty years later. Kerning is not tabloid conversation. This is a craft Bill – I need to get this through to you. common society is not going to explode in a napalm fire of excitement at the sight of three point editing – even if apple has made a morons special mittens versions of it in X.
they could care less Bill – they have other things to do. In point of fact, a certain thrust of this argument almost has a weird form of craft narcissism to it.What I find quite seriously annoying in the FCPX debate is the exceptionalism applied to this software – its just bad software bill. Its buggy, bloated, its undo’s are unstable, the project file mutates in size at a whim, large projects are a no-no, the colour corrector is a joke, the plug-in architecture is brain damaged.
And yet people surround this software with grand transformative arguments that it does in no way deserve.
This just isn’t particularly good software Bill, and in order to effect it, Apple had to kill an awful lot of very good software.
[Bill Davis] ”
But the huge change is the human expectation of ***access***
”
seriously? – and i’m getting snarky – but seriously – what? Its just editing software Bill – badly conceived and executed editing software.It’s not the singularity.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Bill Davis] ”
The opportunity migrates from the sons and daughters of the “elites” in the TV biz or in Hollywood, to the sons and daughters of anyone. That’s change. And pretty much the definition of “democratization.”
“right because editing is a closed royal family. You’re funny Bill. And I think you have issues with editing in a weird way. Also – why do you think half the world is champing at the bit to edit eh? haven’t they got other things to be doing?
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
{Bill Davis} – “It’s kinda like ALL of us who blog or write opinion based posts in open forums such as this are being schooled by the big bad world to give more weight to the journalistic traditions of solid sourcing, and keeping that fence between opinions and facts in good repair.”
Pity some never seem to learn a thing from that experience.
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “What I find quite seriously annoying in the FCPX debate is the exceptionalism applied to this software – its just bad software bill. Its buggy, bloated, its undo’s are unstable, the project file mutates in size at a whim, large projects are a no-no, the colour corrector is a joke, the plug-in architecture is brain damaged.
And yet people surround this software with grand transformative arguments that it does in no way deserve.
This just isn’t particularly good software Bill, and in order to effect it, Apple had to kill an awful lot of very good software. “
I know that’s your often expressed opinion. I think you’re almost totally wrong.
Some of that is provable. Because I (and other editors increasingly) in nearly daily use find it to be stable, useful, interesting, and even exciting to explore.
I actually think it’s is precisely exceptional software. Because it embodies the willingness to try something different. And difference is, by definition, exceptional. You may HATE that difference. But that could possibly be your own overly-turgid thinking in play, sir.
If it was ORDINARY – like it’s four major competitors – it couldn’t possibly make anyone so angry. Nobody gets their feathers so ruffled because of something ordinary. So you, yourself, are kinda de facto proof of it’s very exceptionalism!
The difficult truth for you is that I, as well as an increasingly large number of others, find the problems that you are so incensed about to be other than “mission critical.” They would only be worth getting so incredibly pissed about if all editors had the same needs and wants. But we don’t. A fact that you seem to be absolutely unwilling to open your eyes to see.
So given this “perception gulf” between your view and mine, it appears that either I’m a complete idiot and extremely shortsighted – or YOU are.
If your view holds sway, then people like me are just absolute idiots who willingly face the constant plague of disasters — day in and day out — and yet are simply too stupid to notice them.
If you are correct, then in a year, FCP-X will be gone and nobody much will be using it. Precisely because your wild conjectural contentions would be enough to send ANY editor away from any piece of software.On the other hand, if FCP-X doesn’t “disappear” then you have to face the fact that it’s actually not “us” who are shortsighted, it’s you.
And I’d be careful holding to that view too firmly. A dozen people on this very board are using it handily to deliver paid work – sure some have issues – no V1 software excapes them. But the voices appear to be increasing that people who increasingly understand the software, also increasingly appreciate it.
And your real problem, Andreas, is that even if every single thing you allege is true, FCP-X with the resources behind it still has every chance of turning out to be the SeaBiscuit of NLEs – the dismissed runt thats too small, too ill-bred, not “pedigreed” enough for the editing “country club” set – right up to the point that it proves to be a wildly superior horse for the real world of racing.
Time will tell, won’t it.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
Marvin,
As someone who wrote on deadline for a national circulation magazine for more than a decade – the absence of an editor and a staff of “fact checkers” makes “learning” a whole different process in my opinion.
In this brave new world, it’s largely self-correct and self-learn.
Which is hard. No question about it.
But awareness of any issue is the first step to improvement, I suppose.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
I hear you Bill,
But I include all those things when I say shooting (lighting sound and such)
I wouldn’t show up to shoot something with no sound and lights.
My point remains, most mom and pop places can’t do all that themselves yet. Still cost too much.
I think a lot of new folks can use the program though and will like it.
I don’t really think people who never shot or edited for their business will jump out there just because X came out.
Many people outside of the biz never heard of X : )
-
God Bill, you kill me, you really do
[Bill Davis] “And difference is, by definition, exceptional. “
you need to look up the old dictionary there Bill, because that definition really is amazingly wrong.Annywaaay, where were we,
[Bill Davis] “You may HATE that difference. But that could possibly be your own overly-turgid thinking in play, sir.”
No, I’m just of the opinion that it is poorly crafted software, made for the wrong reasons.[Bill Davis] “If it was ORDINARY – like it’s four major competitors – it couldn’t possibly make anyone so angry. “
Hahahaha. No, dearest bill, but if it was somewhat crappy in execution and filled to brim with useless, reductive timeline metaphors, It sure could annoy a few people.[Bill Davis] “The difficult truth for you is that I, as well as an increasingly large number of others, find the problems that you are so incensed about to be other than “mission critical.” “
Oh its a harsh truth Bill – you and the other enlightened souls evangelising this software are unconcerned with the old let me see what did I cite again..
Its buggy, bloated, its undo’s are unstable, the project file mutates in size at a whim, large projects are a no-no, the colour corrector is a joke, the plug-in architecture is brain damaged.sure whaaat? would any of that stuff be mission critical? unstable undo, mutating project crippling project file size?
SURE WHATS THE PROBLEM THERE LIKE????? NAY PROBLEM AT ALLLLL…you kill me, Bill, I swear.
[Bill Davis] “They would only be worth getting so incredibly pissed about if all editors had the same needs and wants. “
who wants to undo? or have a stable project file? Who needs all that old fashioned nineteenth century horse drawn cart obselete functionality? I’ll tell you who Bill – its those evil royal editors in their gilded cages of high level employment – you know the ones Bill, we’ve whispered about this before – the evil twenty thousand so-called professionals working in documentary drama and film. Its those romanovs Bill – they’re the only ones who care.We’ll get them some day Bill, you me and the woman cutting her vet practise ad in FCPX when it doesn’t crash, fail playback or grind to a halt. You me and her Bill – we are going to change the world with FCPX – WE WILL MAKE IT ANEW.
sorry – lost the run of myself there a little – where were we…
[Bill Davis] ”
If your view holds sway, then people like me are just absolute idiots who willingly face the constant plague of disasters — day in and day out — and yet are simply too stupid to notice them. “I’m afraid to say anything here.
[Bill Davis] “And your real problem, Andreas, is that even if every single thing you allege is true, FCP-X with the resources behind it still has every chance of turning out to be the SeaBiscuit of NLEs – the dismissed runt thats too small, too ill-bred, not “pedigreed” enough for the editing “country club” set “
This is where I fell off the chair laughing – so.. then,,, to translate Bill – what you are saying is that even if I’m right, and FCPX is a poorly conceived badly executed crock of software – it will and should win because of the brutish power of Apple, and that the ends will justify the means because it will get at the hated “Editing Country Club crowd”
COUNTRY CLUB CROWD? who are you – Rodney Dangerfield??? Were you beaten up by a professional editor as a child Bill? you really have some issues here – its ok if you need to talk about that, really it is.
God almighty…
[Bill Davis] “given this “perception gulf” between your view and mine, it appears that either I’m a complete idiot and extremely shortsighted – or YOU are.”
Bill, that right there? that is you, nail and head.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up