-
Complicated means Pro : Simplified is Dumb/Amateurish
-
[Gerald Baria] “”If you’re talking about HP, I’m not sure you understand what really happened… HP is spinning off it’s consumer PC business. ”
Actually I completely understand, as I mentioned I have this little obsession with gadget news.:) It was mentioned in their earnings call that the ” Tablet effect is real” and they are feeling it….
But they’re not feeling it in their workstation business. They have a bigger share of workstation sales than anyone on the the planet, and it’s growing.
They are feeling the heat in their gadget and consumer business, not the pro workstations. which is why they’re spinning it off. No need to let the losses in that area get in the way of their growing profits at the high end: beefy hardware, with wall-to-wall support, and a whole division of the company exclusively focused on meeting the needs of film and TV production professionals who can afford $5K+ machines.
Running Windows of course, but plenty of Mac pros are using Windows boxes for things like SCRATCH, digital cinema packages, etc….aside from the large market of creative pros using Windows. My point being that HP has a play in this market, and is MAKING that play in a bigger and bigger way — not a smaller and smaller one.
They’d rather focus on workstations, and let Apple have the rest.
In other words….
HP is getting rid of gadgets and consumer doo-dads in order to focus exclusively on the needs of high-end pros.
What a concept!
-
[Carsten Orlt]I just reduced everything getting ready for the slim lined world of FCP x. So very true that a lot of people still relate professional to complicated.
What did you “reduce”? What do you mean by “slim lined world”?
-
I was a newbie, and so was everyone else on this board.
And old hands were trashing our methods.
I still remember the first time I shot in the “magic hour”.
“There’s no magic hour. There’s just day time and too dark.”
____
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”
-
You nailed it Walter.
Look up “dumbing down” on wikipedia, and here’s the entry.
“Dumbing down can point to a variety of different situations, but the concept always involves a claim about the simplification of culture, education and thought; a decline in creativity and innovation; a degradation of artistic, cultural and intellectual standards, or the undermining of the very idea of a standard; and the trivialization of cultural, artistic and academic creations.”
I’d like to say more, but it sounds bitter.
-
“Given that there are currently stability issues, minimal plu ign support, file sharing capabilities but those have been promised to be fixed”
Promises, promises, I don’t live on promises. Post again when they actually are fixed.
“AND WHEN THEY DO, what becomes of your previous opinion about FCPX?! Suddenly it becomes the fastest most powerful editimg software that exists”
IN what way is it faster than PPro, that has been 64 bit for almost a year, handles all formats without rendering, is integrated seamlessly with Photoshop and AE and can actually output an EDL.
In what way is it faster than Edius or Sony Vegas?
What is so special about FCPX other than the name Apple that comes on the box. And while Apple is hugely successful in many fields, it’s record is pretty dismal when it comes to applications programming. What makes you think FCPX won’t be the Motion of the compositing field – an interesting quirky program that is miles behind After Effects in almost every way?
“your not part of the editor demographic that will be financially sensible to “immediately” move to FCPX because of the fact that your heavily invested in FCP 7 gear, (plug ins,hardware etc.)”
But I am going to move, I’ll be migrating to a new platform by next spring. Whatever my investment in FCP7, it is already sunk. It will cost me the same to switch to FCPX as it will to Avid. So these costs, which you seem to think are having an effect on my decision making, are in truth totally beside the point.
“But for the rest of the other guys, those that are about to go inoa transition period of upgrading their systems, those new businesses that have an al digital workflow, and all the new editors that want to get into the game and looking for a system to invest into, in short, those who are thingking about their future, FCPX should be a great option.”
As long as you don’t need multi-cam, don’t have to deliver to PBS or other Broadcasters that require tape deliverables, don’t have to collaborate with Colorists and Audio Post Houses, don’t need to view your video on reference monitors to know what it actually looks like, yes FCPX is a fine option. No better than some others, but it does have the Apple logo.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
I do our in-house doc editing, so no client looking over my shoulder and no ‘a million’ formats for me.
A: Getting rid of all the tape based stuff, or at least putting it to the side and out of view. Haven’t even connected it yet.
B. getting rid of the old CRT broadcast monitor and making space just for a good 2nd comp monitor.
C. Thinking instead of doing everything myself, actually getting the expertise of specialist involved. So need for proper CC monitoring etc.
D. All compis still working now, but I know the next machine will be one mac mini and one thunderbolt raid. Couple of monitors and your done. Finally stop with all this specialty i/o hardware which always gets obsolete when the next standard of pci/thunderbolt/firewire or whatever comes out. Don’t want to think about how much money I sank into technology that was dead after a couple of years.
I was never a fan of software that has a million buttons all doing the same thing or just in different combinations. Editing is actually quite a simple process. Everything else is FX . No need to have that in the editing software. Yes I know FCPx is not talking to the rest yet. If it never does I will not update and use FCP 7 quite happily. But I’d rather use FCPx.
-
[Gary Pollard] “I was a newbie, and so was everyone else on this board.”
And if you’re doing it right, you’re ALWAYS a newbie about something.
I wrote a piece for Creative COW Magazine a little while back, called Hello. My name is Tim. I am a Newbie.
Worth another read, if I say so myself.
-
“I know FCPx is not talking to the rest yet. If it never does I will not update and use FCP 7 quite happily. But I’d rather use FCPx.”
Just curious as to why your only choice is FCPX or FCP7. Why not look at PPro for your tapeless workflow. It’s a much easier migration than FCPX in terms of both training and file compatibility.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
[Walter Soyka] “A professional application should not sacrifice control, nuance, flexibility, or capability for simplicity.”
I agree wholeheartedly. I’d also add functionality to the list.
Why was it necessary to remove the ability to customize the GUI in FCP X and Motion 5 as was possible in FCP 7 and Motion 4? Why must we be restricted to what is ostensibly a single monitor interface? While it’s possible to use a second monitor in FCP X, it’s a far cry from being able to organize workspaces for particular tasks as is possible in FCP 7. I like to have my bins (browser) and scopes on the secondary display. Why was that ability removed? What purpose does it serve?
Why was it necessary to remove support for broadcast monitoring, or why was it deemed a feature unnecessary for the first release? Why was it necessary to dumb down the color correction interface and create a completely non-standard GUI that has nothing in common with any other industry standard video CC tool? Are color wheels really that difficult for new editors to fathom?
Why was it necessary to change the terminology of bins/sequences/projects to events, etc.? Despite the merits of metadata, I don’t understand why Apple needed to arbitrarily rewrite the established lexicon of NLE terminology. It’s almost as if they went out of their way to create something as foreign and perplexing to established editors as possible. Even if the new system works well and has advantages, what was the need to invent a new language? Who was asking for this? What purpose does it serve?
It’s clear from listening to Larry Jordan’s interviews that Apple did not create FCP X in a vacuum without input from the film/broadcast industry. They actively chose to ignore the advice they received. Knowing that, it’s understandable why those who work in film/broadcast might feel slighted as a result. That makes Apple’s decision to preview FCP X at the NAB supermeet even more perplexing. Why would they go out of their way to address a film/broadcast audience if their plan was to ignore them as a user base? It seems that the poorly handled release of FCP X and the immediate EOL of FCP 7 has helped to foster an environment in which an antagonistic false dichotomy of “high end” pros vs. non-broadcast pros (“new media” pros, DSLR pros, etc.) is played out daily in this forum. It didn’t have to be this way, and it is not constructive. Apple could easily have created a more inclusive application without sacrificing functionality or alienating its legacy user base. Why it chose not to remains a mystery.
-
[Gerald Baria] “I may not understand the sentiments of those old business owners suddenly being overtaken by newbies in the industry with cheaper gear, It must hurt a lot, but thats reality.”
Tim/Gary – I wasn’t trashing newbs for being newbs. I was trashing the concept that newbs armed with FCP X/cheap gear can overtake an industry. When you were newbs did you think you could?
Would anyone suggest that a newb with a cheaper camera is a threat to someone established with his F3 or Red? The point should be that the more experienced people are already drawing and competing for clients who demand quality. So why would a cheap editor be different? These are the clients how are well aware that poor quality not only fails to draw, but actually causes damage.
Where is the newb in that picture? Seriously.Final Cut Pro going from $1000 to $300 isn’t newsworthy. That had no effect on this industry – whatsoever.
If you want to understand Apple’s audience, it’s not the financially strapped. That has never been their focus.
It is those who find FCP 7 to be intimidating. FCP X is the one-button mouse of the editing universe.What should be newsworthy is that acquiring a cheap copy of “pro” software doesn’t turn a newb into a ninja. It just puts him on the same long path we’ve all been on – with the disadvantage that he won’t be able to talk to anyone outside the FCP X clique without constantly having to explain himself.
I feel sorry for him.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up