Chris Fenwick has a new project

[Charlie Austin]

[Craig Seeman] “Facilities will use one but will use another on specific project, not two NLEs on a single project. From what I hear, that’s what’s happening with FCPX at the moment.”

That’s sort of where I’m at these days. In my little niche, X still suffers from the “nobody uses it” stigma. Which is odd, especially because this has been told to me by people sitting in my room as I am cutting an actual spot, for an actual “hollywood” movie, in FCPX. Anyway…

It’s trivially easy now to move things back and forth between X, 7, and PrCC now. I’m bouncing around in all 3 daily lately. (MC is the odd man out here unfortunately). I agree that in a large organization it totally makes sense to have a main axe, so to speak. And X really has been a PITA when it comes to sharing “projects” (used in the broad sense meaning sequences and events) which has made it difficult for facilities to commit to it. That’s likely to change, at which point it’s really just about willingness to learn a new tool.

There are still some little hoops to jump through in an offline/online workflow, Nothing major though and honestly, a lot of finishing facilities here still haven’t really accepted FCP 7, so it’s nothing new. 😉

I really wish we could get some sound deadener in the echo chamber though, and I imagine the next version of X will help with that.

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Andy Field]

big bureaucracy wheels turn very slowly –

this is a many month evaluation over many different users.

Their goal isn’t to just pick an NLE and be done with it – there are many moving parts in legacy systems – servers – many different programs and clients…..

this is why you don’t see IT departments jumping at the latest incarnation of Windows or MS Word —

It’s also why those who embrace FCP X can’t understand the angst many organizations had discovering the next version of FCP was completely different than what their vast work forces were used to. They simply didn’t have the time and money for the massive retraining — or to wait the (what has it been now, two years?) for the program to do everything it did before in the previous version.

It’s why Mark Raudonis’s operation had to quickly find a new solution.

Big organizations are like aircraft carriers — once everything’s working with minimum fuss – no one wants to yank the steering wheel and make a 180 turn…with anything.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852

[Gary Huff]

Of course, you bring it on yourself because you are apparently here under a pseudonym and refuse to show any of your work, nor can anything about you be found.

Then you toss in an unneeded reference to a “Showtime” pilot (which could be someone with an F55 doing an independent pilot that they hope to pitch to Showtime for all I know).

Frankly, I think you don’t have any work of note, know most of what you know from reading forums, and have an attitude that bespeaks your desire to play in the big leagues (but here’s a helpful hint…you think you’re cleverer than you actually are) but are so far stuck in bush even though you think you’re so much smarter than you current level of experience.

You could also be a troll, but I know people who have a personality like yours (those who don’t know what they don’t know) so it’s possible you are just an earnest jerk.

You should really tone it down.

[Gary Huff]

Perhaps you should give examples of the work you do before you go demanding people list out things for you.

[Charlie Austin]

[Andy Field] “Big organizations are like aircraft carriers — once everything’s working with minimum fuss – no one wants to yank the steering wheel and make a 180 turn…with anything.”

Absolutely true, and with good reason. Some of it’s the retraining hurdle, though there are some shops here that have moved to MC from FCP which – for editors who have only known FCP (a lot these days) – is just as steep a learning curve, steeper maybe, as moving to X would have been.

I think, for people who use 7, the biggie is being able to share things as easily as they can now. Once that is no longer an issue, I think X will become more appealing in places where that’s important.

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Lance Bachelder]

Haha exactly! Thanks!

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

[Keith Koby]

[Shane Ross] “Precisely! Even when it was between Avid and FCP Legacy, larger production companies choose one or the other, rarely both. The only places I’ve seen both in play were post houses that served a variety of clients, who used one or the other. But companies that have tons of editors and shows that need to get to air…they were either FCP or Avid.”

Well, not exactly… One of our friends that posts here has posted about using Avid for one particular type of job and fcp legacy for others. And he has spoken about the hardships encountered along the way to keep either platform going. Also, I know first hand from my engineering friends at one of the large 3 letter premium networks that they had for years maintained fcp legacy for producers and avid for their editors.

To me both are clear illustrations of large organizations doing serious edit work using multiple platforms. Some work collaborative even. The difference being that their is a clear dividing point on who uses which platform.

We still support FCP7 for some workflows and X for others. At this point we are also considering Adobes for another isolated workflow with it’s own set of editors. Projects aren’t necessarily shared, but materials are and pieces are certainly fed from one area into another.

Keith Koby
Sr. Director Post-Production Engineering
iNDEMAND
Howard TV!/Movies On Demand/iNDEMAND Pay-Per-View/iNDEMAND 3D

[Bret Williams]

🙂 I write the same posts many times but I usually end up deleting my first sentence before I hit post. I’ve actually probably written more posts than I’ve posted. Often I’ll write some lengthly reply to something and read it and just say to myself… “who the hell cares?” and never post it. Perhaps this should have been one of those posts.

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Craig Seeman] “by individuals who did not want to let go of the past.””

honestly – people really have to stop trying to characterise it as the future – Cioni could lay off it for instance – FCPX is a powerful option. calling every other editing system the past just doesn’t pass the sniff test. Premiere CC kicks its ass across the room in a number of areas, and it kicks premieres in a number of areas too. Neither of them can touch the industrial strength stability of Avid. Obviously avid is the worst though.

Avid really is just the worst. the absolute worst. God how do I hate thee avid.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Charlie Austin]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “calling every other editing system the past just doesn’t pass the sniff test. Premiere CC kicks its ass across the room in a number of areas, and it kicks premieres in a number of areas too. Neither of them can touch the industrial strength stability of Avid.”

Well, this is weird. I agree. 🙂

[Aindreas Gallagher] “Obviously avid is the worst though.”

Now you’ve done it. lol

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~