Apple PR page on 10.4 for the curious.

[Andrew Kimery]

[Bill Davis] “The links are interesting.
The Education package, Premium Beat, Color Grading Central, etc, etc.”

Maybe I’m behind the times since I haven’t been using X that long, but is this a big deal because X couldn’t import third party LUTs before? Or X could, but Apple never really advertised that as much as now?

[Noah Kadner] “Fair comment but I don’t think that’s endemic to Apple now is it?”

In general no, but if Avid made this same claim around MC they could easily point to a laundry list of Best Picture and/or Best Film Editing Oscar wins for films cut on MC.

[Brett Sherman] “So there are absolutely no “award winning Hollywood films” edited on X? Sometimes I’m amazed at how people misread things. You’ll note it doesn’t say “Oscar” or “Emmy”. And “Hollywood films” is a spongy term.”

And that’s point of using ‘weasel words’ in marking materials. The wording is specific enough for the audience to get what the author is implying, but vague enough that the author can’t deny making explicitly make false statements.

By saying “Hollywood” Apple implies a major studio production and coupling that with “award winning” and the first thing that people will think of is the Oscars. It’s fairly obvious that Apple wants readers to ‘fill in the blanks’ and come away with the impression that X has been used to edit some of the famous Hollywood films they’ve seen and those films have won some of the famous Hollywood awards they’ve heard about. Which is certainly better from a marketing standpoint than mentioning films most people haven’t heard of and awards from festival that most people didn’t know existed.

[Oliver Peters]

You guys are grasping at straws, making excuses for a rushed PR piece that wasn’t properly researched or vetted.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Noah Kadner]

Not seeing your point. It’s just a press release.

Noah

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

[Oliver Peters]

[Noah Kadner] “Not seeing your point. It’s just a press release.”

Because it’s blatantly false. I could care less, but since Bill brought it up and Craig chose to highlight that little bit of creative writing, I felt like it should be called out. Apple certainly makes enough money to employ a good PR team. There are also plenty of outstanding productions posted with FCPX. They don’t need to make claims for something that hasn’t been earned (yet). I just think it’s sloppy. Probably handed off to an intern to write.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Bill Davis]

[Andrew Kimery] “Maybe I’m behind the times since I haven’t been using X that long, but is this a big deal because X couldn’t import third party LUTs before? Or X could, but Apple never really advertised that as much as now?”

Not sure it’s a LUT thing, in my view.

The only reason I noticed the reference to Denver’s site specifically was that with the new grading tools in 10.4 – I think there was some sense that it was a direct competitive shot at Finale, Colorista and of course, Resolve.

That CGC gets some love here directly from Apple PR seems contrary to that narrative.

That’s all.

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

[Andrew Kimery]

[Bill Davis] “That CGC gets some love here directly from Apple PR seems contrary to that narrative.

That’s all.”

Ah, I get what you are saying now. Thanks for the clarification, Bill.

[Shane Ross]

“FAKE NEWS!”

Sorry, just had to say that.

I agree with Oliver, statements like that need to be backed up, or have a basis in reality. And yes, if an independent film used it, and won a SPIRIT award or other film festival…that would count in my book (even though the term “Hollywood film” typically means made by a major studio). So if they make that claim, back it up.

Although I personally hate that type of marketing…and Avid does it ALL THE TIME. “THESE BEST PICTURE WINNERS/NOMINEES WERE ALL CUT ON AVID!” So? is that what made them good? No, it was the story and the direction and the acting and the editing…NOT the tools. I bet if the best picture was shot with a BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera and used lower end lighting, and was cut on FCX or Say Resolve, it would still have won. Because it wasn’t the tool that made it great, it was the talent BEHIND the tools.

BUT, the claim those companies like to make is that “our product enabled the creatives to do what needed to be done, properly and efficiently, in order to make the great film they did.” Fine..OK…whatever.

But for Apple to make that claim that award winning Hollywood films were cut using FCX…they need to back up the claim. WHERE’S THE BEEF!

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

[Oliver Peters]

[Shane Ross] “No, it was the story and the direction and the acting and the editing…NOT the tools.”

Well, that’s certainly true, but I interview a lot of these editors for stories. They will frequently tell me – as well as Steve Hullfish, who does a lot more interviews than I do – that they couldn’t have done – fill in the blank here – without Media Composer, Premiere Pro, Final Cut Pro X, Lightworks, or whatever. The same is true of other user stories, like those that Peter and Ronny write for FCP.co.

So from a marketing perspective, a company is naturally going to associate themselves with that. They are saying that their tool is the choice of the people who do the craft and win the awards. The same holds true for guitars, watches, cars, etc.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Carmi Weinzweig]

Took me all of 5 minutes to find this list:

[Oliver Peters]

[Carmi Weinzweig] “Took me all of 5 minutes to find this list:”

A list of films, for sure. Hollywood and award-winning? Hmm…

I would agree that “Miss Simone” would fit by a loose definition.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com