Beats by Dr. Dre???

[Herb Sevush]

[Bill Davis] ” I still thought the different take on what “quality” means to various consumers and audiences was worth sharing.”

Back in the day of stereo components certain speakers (Cerwin Vega among others) were favored for their “maximall base” sound by the disco crowd. As usual the only thing new here is the amount of marketing surrounding an old practice.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Oliver Peters]

Interesting read, but… You do realize that the argument being made – tailoring a product to custom preferences – is completely opposite of how FCP X has been designed, don’t you? If anything, FCP X imposes one and only one workflow, which either works for you or it doesn’t.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Steve Connor]

[Oliver Peters] ” If anything, FCP X imposes one and only one workflow, which either works for you or it doesn’t.”

How does FCPX impose one workflow?

Steve Connor
“FCPX Agitator”
Adrenalin Television

[Gary Huff]

[Steve Connor]How does FCPX impose one workflow?

Seriously? Because you only have that magnetic timeline and no option to turn on a second viewer. That’s pretty significant right there.

[Steve Connor]

[Gary Huff] “Seriously? Because you only have that magnetic timeline and no option to turn on a second viewer. That’s pretty significant right there.
“

Using the Position tool turns the magnetic timeline off leaving you free to place, move and trim clips on the timeline without ripple.

Steve Connor
“FCPX Agitator”
Adrenalin Television

[Daniel Frome]

I’m seriously beginning to think that you don’t actually care about FCPX at all, but have found a golden way to troll us all into useless debate. I look at this debate forum and realize the pattern… you sir, are definitely going to have the last laugh.

[Oliver Peters]

[Steve Connor] “How does FCPX impose one workflow?”

No custom layouts for anything.
No batch export and the workflow benefits it can provide.
No QT reference exports and the workflow benefits it can provide.
Lack of mixer panel and track-based versus clip-based mixing (you had an option in “Legacy”).
Unified viewer.
Lack of I/O for industry-accepted metadata formats (EDL, XML, ALE, FCP Batch Lists, Tab Delimited, etc.)
Emphasis on metadata-based logging without the option to effectively and extensively use manual logging and organization methods.
No manual relinking and the workflow benefits it can provide.

That’s just the short list….

– Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Steve Connor]

[Oliver Peters] “No custom layouts for anything.
No batch export and the workflow benefits it can provide.
No QT reference exports and the workflow benefits it can provide.
Lack of mixer panel and track-based versus clip-based mixing (you had an option in “Legacy”).
Unified viewer.
Lack of I/O for industry-accepted metadata formats (EDL, XML, ALE, FCP Batch Lists, Tab Delimited, etc.)
Emphasis on metadata-based logging without the option to effectively and extensively use manual logging and organization methods.
No manual relinking and the workflow benefits it can provide.

That’s just the short list.”

Fair point , we all know what it’s lacking, but it is incorrect to state FCPX offers you forces you into ONE workflow

Steve Connor
“FCPX Agitator”
Adrenalin Television

[Bill Davis]

[Oliver Peters] ” If anything, FCP X imposes one and only one workflow, which either works for you or it doesn’t.

Oliver
“

Sorry, Oliver, but I find this to be extremely faulty reasoning.

It’s only true if you’re stuck in defining “workflow” as the way one particular type of editor wants to edit.

Yes, the toolset in X is unique. But in my personal experience that toolset is wide, variable and flexible. Not “limiting” at all.

I have at least half a dozen contextual ways to get a clip into my timeline. I can append, overwrite, connect, etc, etc. This is the absolute antithesis of “one workflow.”

Concrete example: I can put anything from a traditional master shot, to a soundtrack, to a collection of discrete scenes in my primary storyline. That’s not at all “one way” – it’s truly “any way I prefer.” The key is that the editor has to learn about the new capabilities and those strengths and weaknesses of each. If, as you suggest, there is simply “one way” to edit in X. Then all the smart guys here would have figured out exactly what it can and can’t do in the first week – and this endless debate would have faded away. That we’re still talking about precisely how it works six months after introduction is prima facia evidence that it’s not a simple “one way to do things” construct at all.

The problem (and I acknowledge that this is purely my opinion, not fact) is that those who have the most problem with the way X is designed are those who are unwilling or unable to look at how the new tool’s unique capabilities can foster different approaches to their editing work. They are often stuck in a mindset built around “I want to edit how I’ve always edited, end of story.”

I can sympathize with that. For many, change is hard, risky, and possibly even threatening to their business. But that’s no reason that it should be unavailable for those who want to embrace it.

The primary reality of FCP-X is that it’s a micro suite of five basic interconnected “work area” functions. Two relatively minor ones (ingest and export) one sleeper (IMO) the project library – and two that are major and more or less transformative regards to editing possibilities.

Those are the Event Library and the new Timeline construct.

Most people who dismiss the software focus their attention and wrath nearly exclusively on the timeline. And yes, it’s changed significantly. It’s also where virtually ALL the editing was concentrated in the traditional NLE model. So I get that altering this has riled people.

But they did – so there you go. Holding on to anger or hostility is useless. It’s changed. Argue all you want but the new model is in place, and all I’m saying about it is that I find the new one EXTREMELY useful and fully featured – even if some of those features are such that people resist them or are not useful in their preferential style of editing.

That one may or may not “like” the magnetism at first is actually pretty trivial. Anyone with a brain and some experience can adapt to it. It’s really not all that radical – just different. It takes a couple of weeks, IMO before you start to comfortably expect the magnetic behavior and start to see where it helps and where you need to use Position to override it. No big deal.

But timeline issues aside (and anyone who edits for a living knows that the timeline is only ONE part of editing), this move to “modularity” enables new connections and possibilities that are amazingly useful for many common program creation and, yes, even editing tasks.

Consider just the fact that decisions made in the Event Library are retained across all projects. That’s a HUGE potential win for efficiency. It makes pre-work available not just for “this project” but or ALL subsequent projects that assets might be used in.

That the project library represents the “published state” of particular edit – also has huge potential. If its viewed only in the context of what a “timeline” used to represent in Legacy, it will look like a step backwards – but once you see what it really is, its just as easy to see where it might fit in a new world of rapid and agile content distribution.

X was totally re-imagined compared to Legacy. That re-imagining was not trivial – and it was also not arbitrary. IMO, they built X the way they did not because they didn’t “understand” editing, nor because they were focused exclusively on a tool for one particular type of editor (the iMovie graduate) – but because they completely understood the wide range of what “editing” might become in a more fully digital, more data centric era – and for a marketplace with increasingly diverse needs. (A key point since there are more “editors” now that every before – like it or not – dismiss those who aren’t in highly paid seats or not – or who do work like “I” do – or not.)

That’s fundamentally why I disagree with your assessment. I believe this tool is better for more diverse editing than Legacy ever was. Because it has more varied tools. Yes, in the initial build, they concentrated on tools that are universal (like the database) which can be used by all in very different ways, tailored to individual work styles – over tools are more “mission specific” like OMF export or multi-cam.

But the foundation is not “my way or the highway” it’s nearly totally “here’s a wider array of tools you can use to do things that you couldn’t do as easily before. – yeah we put some shiny new ones that you’re not used to (like the magnetic timeline) right up front to announce that this is not a “traditional” NLE- but if you can’t let go of your older habits yet (or just don’t want to) – just poke around a bit. That stuff is around as well.)

FWIW.

“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]

[Daniel Frome] “I’m seriously beginning to think that you don’t actually care about FCPX at all, but have found a golden way to troll us all into useless debate. I look at this debate forum and realize the pattern… you sir, are definitely going to have the last laugh.
“

Don’t know about the last laugh bit. It’s not my intent. My intent simple. I see X differently than a lot of other people do. And I think the alternate view is deserving of a public airing. Period.

And specifically about this post, I wasn’t trolling at all. I was pointing out that the reality that “standards” for what can be considered professional tools are not set in stone – but increasingly flexible among the ultimate arbiters of business success – todays consumers.

I suspect that some here find that on-topic and useful. Or not.

Look, particularly on this board and in this forum, FCP-X has taken what I consider a grossly unfair beating.

It was never either salvation or damnation – but a narrative was developing here that painted it with a single brush – that of being “unprofessional.”

I rejected that from day one. Still do. Vigorously. That same rap is layed by some on my kids headphones. But he loves them passionately. So is he wrong? Is he ignorant because he enjoys something that don’t meet my personal standards? (Acttully, I gave them a listen and found myself really liking them – so go figure!)

Probably because my whole career has been reasonably non-traditional and the practices that have worked best for me were never the ones that depended on large institutional support – but more those that empowered me to learn and do things that stretched me as an individual.

The loudest voices damning X were those who kept saying it was “unprofessional” by defining “professional” in narrow terms of the view from their institutionl workflow or large post house seat. They weren’t “wrong” just limited in perspective. (As am I, I freely admit.)

I haven’t held a “seat” in a big corporate production structure for more than 20 years. I don’t aspire to those, nor claim to know what’t necessary for success in those. But I am an outsider that regularly gets invited into those organizations to observe (as I did in TV stations early in my career) participate as a freelancer (as I also did for much of my career) and finally, create and sell finished work for clients as a turnkey production operation concentrating largely on corporate communications.

I know what CEOs and Corporate Presidents like – what their SVPs like – and what their designated reps will approve to pay for. That’s good enough for my business model. Plus I love, love, love what I do. (tho it drives me nuts sometime.)

That I help anyone understand anything about editing from my perspective is an accident of the fact that most of the time, that’s the core of my job — looking at how stuff works and translating that for others, primarily in visual, but often in written, or even auditory form.

Honestly, this is not primarily about ME as an editor or pundit or prognosticator. It’s about my understanding of the software – which is somewhat better than most since I”ve been sitting at it for six months now – but likely no where near as good as others who have different critical thinking skills or who bring different evaluative criteria to the assessment. I can (usually) slough off comments directed at me personally. But I have a pretty low threshold for comments that badly malign the tool – when my direct experience tells me that reality is nothing like what’s being bandied about.

FWIW.

“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