- August 17, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Much of the blog is in response to Creative Cow (obviously this forum). It seems to be an early response with a much later update. It’s more about sentiment than anything else but given the COW focus and the sentiments expressed, it’s worth a read. It does show one perspective from a professional editor at NBC in NYC.
FINAL CUT PRO X – REVENGE OF THE EDITOR
- August 17, 2012 at 1:12 pm
With a $600 DSLR, a $1000 computer and now $299 piece of software you can make a TV show or a movie.
While technically you can, is it going to be anything that anyone would want to watch? There are so many “cheap” pieces of media out there that fail on every single count, that this seems somewhat disingenuous, especially for someone who works in broadcast. Takes a lot more than that to produce a show that even looks like the quality you would see on NBC, let alone actually get broadcast outside of news.
Sorry, I know a bit off topic, but this irks me.
- August 17, 2012 at 1:13 pm
I should also add that you could purchase a cheap Windows laptop, install Lightworks, and make it about $500 total instead of $1300. It’s not like FCPX magically improves the quality of your footage or anything.
- August 17, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Can’t send my mix to Protools or Color. – I don’t understand as I do my show mastering in FCP. Always have.
How can he work in broadcast and yet think the world revolves around his workflow? He doesn’t have to send to Pro Tools? Great! Awesome! But some people have to, and they have a legitimate complaint, dontcha think?
- August 17, 2012 at 1:19 pm
[Gary Huff] “is it going to be anything that anyone would want to watch?”
It depends on the story telling ability and how much the low cost camera might hold you back if at all. There certainly are limitations to a $600 DSLR (especially without extra kit) but in the right hands it’ll do OK.
- August 17, 2012 at 1:21 pm
[Gary Huff] “you could purchase a cheap Windows laptop, install Lightworks, and make it about $500 total instead of $1300”
You add emphasis to his point that cost of entry is very low. Talent and skill are the telling factors.
- August 17, 2012 at 1:30 pm
[Gary Huff] “How can he work in broadcast and yet think the world revolves around his workflow? He doesn’t have to send to Pro Tools? Great! Awesome! But some people have to, and they have a legitimate complaint, dontcha think?”
It’s not that some have to, it’s that some don’t. And some of those that don’t, can still do professional broadcast work. It’s not that many complaints weren’t legitimate, it’s that some weren’t. Depends on the job.
He’s not the only one who has these sentiments. I’ve talked a couple of others doing broadcast work and they don’t desire to have any online presence (in forum , blog or interview). They feel there have no reason to defend their choice of tool of preference (FCPX) and don’t have any need or desire to get into online “defense.”
Given how significant the COW plays in his commentary, I don’t doubt that there are a number of people who go about their professional business (some in broadcast) who use FCPX and have no desire to share their experience given the hostility.
- August 17, 2012 at 2:03 pm
What you are describing is more a social issue than a technology issue.
I personally wonder why so many people nowadays like utterly crappy uninspired music.
There are brilliant productions on cheap hardware and there are terrible productions on expensive hardware.
And there’s a lot in between.
- August 17, 2012 at 2:20 pm
We actually shoot on Panasonic HPX-170’s but of late myself and other station groups have actually been adding footage with Canon DLSR’s. Our sister station in San Diego produces a show called SoundDiego which shoots almost entirely on a DLSR. The graphics for my show as well are all shot on a DSLR. And especially as more and more things go tapeless and the addition to IPTV becoming more and more mainstream compression rates are being improved everyday. So the difference in an image between camera’s more and more starts to dwindle. Top that with it being fed over your cable or antenna its actually very easy to get a great picture with inexpensive gear.
- August 17, 2012 at 2:52 pm
[Craig Seeman] “He’s not the only one who has these sentiments. I’ve talked a couple of others doing broadcast work and they don’t desire to have any online presence (in forum , blog or interview). They feel there have no reason to defend their choice of tool of preference (FCPX) and don’t have any need or desire to get into online “defense.””
That cuts both ways. There are plenty of people who have rejected X who have no desire to be pounded on by some of the local proselytizers. In fact most people are quite shy about publishing in public on any forum, the ratio of lurkers to posters must be very high – Tim Wilson do you have any numbers on that. So I’m not feeling your pain on this Craig.
As for “The Yeti” his first specific comments were about multicam editing and they were so ignorant and arrogant as to make one question his judgement about anything, including which way is up.
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf
Log in to reply.