Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX

[Herb Sevush]

[Bill Davis] “Uh, you don’t supposed that anyone could possibly read this as an attack on the PERSON rather than the idea?

Naw, couldn’t be. “

Bill, if you’ve been following along, Mike has admitted he doesn’t really use the multi-cam feature, his exact quote about it was “I myself just have never gotten the hang of it in any sort of way”, while I use it every day. You might also have read where I gave him a tip about how better to use the “stacks” method he already employs. I could do that because I’ve used variations of that method for years. So lets see, I’ve extensively used both methods, he admittedly hasn’t. I don’t see anything personal about that, it’s just the facts. How should I have written it?

[Bill Davis] “We all know that when people write stuff like this – everyone in this forum “hears” an even, reasonable tone in their head, not a dismissive sneering put down…”

We all know that your paranoid beyond belief and hear the sky falling whenever the wind blows. Now that was a personal attack. See the difference?

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

[Bret Williams]

The question can be answered. Can Avid open a composer file from 1992? I’d be curious to know.

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Craig Seeman] “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.””

Craig Seeman, in a parking lot, after putting the flower pot on the balcony, speaking to the unseen professional FCPX hordes; leading quiet, fearful, completely silent, magnetic lives.

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

[Clint Wardlow]

[Bret Williams] “The question can be answered. Can Avid open a composer file from 1992? I’d be curious to know.”

Ahhh, I wasn’t being that serious. Just wanted to blow off some steam ’cause I am having a bitch of a time making a quicktime file that plays decently as a Withoutabox online screener.

So resume the FCPX blog discussion. Sorry I interrupted.

[Bill Davis]

[Herb Sevush] “Bill, if you’ve been following along, Mike has admitted he doesn’t really use the multi-cam feature, his exact quote about it was “I myself just have never gotten the hang of it in any sort of way”, while I use it every day. You might also have read where I gave him a tip about how better to use the “stacks” method he already employs. I could do that because I’ve used variations of that method for years. So lets see, I’ve extensively used both methods, he admittedly hasn’t. I don’t see anything personal about that, it’s just the facts. How should I have written it? “

Let’s take this seriously for a moment.

When I read your post, it sounded extremely snarky and dismissive to me. So I started to respond to it.

BUT – and I think this is VERY important.

After I cut out your words to quote them, a funny thing happened. I noticed that while my “snarky” reading was perfectly in tune to your words (try going back and reading what I quoted of yours in the previous message and see if you can ‘hear” it as mocking and dismissive, just for fun) – I also noticed that it was possible to step back and read the SAME words with less internal emotion and sneering in mind.

Essentially, it reminded me that when we write things here – the TONE we might actually be using is generally NOT conveyed with the text. That is something that comes from the readers perceptions of the personality of the poster.

I find it easy to attribute dismissal and condemnation to you, because we argue. So the lightbulb for me was to understand that there might actually be different intent behind the words that you, or Chris’s or Aindreas might actually THINK they are putting into what they write.

And in fairness, I suspect it’s worked both ways. I’ve often been surprised at how negatively many here have taken things I’ve written – when I’ve honestly written them with a neutral or even conciliatory tone in my head – only to find that people read them as if I was mocking their ideas.

THAT is the point here.

Absent the cues of tone and body language, I suspect we ALL have been guilty of applying personality traits to others that they simply don’t have (or at least aren’t using in the moment.)

You guys missed the meetup in Las Vegas, but the four of us sat at a table for nearly three hours and nobody had an argument or a hassle. Everyone listened. Everyone was respectful. And more than that – it was fun.

So I’m just pointing out that probably half the vitriol here is actually nothing more or less than dumb mistakes on the parts of EVERYONE here, myself firmly included in misinterpreting TONE.

Simple as that.

“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

[Christian Schumacher]

[Herb Sevush] “In fact most people are quite shy about publishing in public on any forum, the ratio of lurkers to posters must be very high”

There’s a somewhat poor thermometer for that; Twitter’s “tweets” and Facebook’s “likes”.
Until this day, the FCPX debate forum had 18 tweets and 115 likes.
While the FCPX techniques had 1 tweet and 5 likes.

I reckon the techniques forum is a lot newer than this one, but I still count that as an anecdotal evidence that FCPX is not only in its infancy, but pretty much raising uncertainty regarding its future.

Is that due to the ‘haters hatin’ or the mother’s mishandling of her newborn?

[Steve Connor]

[Christian Schumacher] “I reckon the techniques forum is a lot newer than this one, but I still count that as an anecdotal evidence that FCPX is not only in its infancy, but pretty much raising uncertainty regarding its future.
“

Wow, that’s quite an assumption based on tweets and likes

Steve Connor
‘It’s just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure”

[Herb Sevush]

[Bill Davis] “Let’s take this seriously for a moment.”

Good, I think this is a good place to do that. I hear what your saying and generally agree with it.

However if you really look at my writing you’ll notice constant phrases like this – “I believe that (you don’t get something)” “I think that (such and such doesn’t work)” “In my workflow (bladah bladah bladah.)”

I try never to be absolute or authoritarian in my arguments, despite being cynical in my tone. I make it an emphasis to let everyone know how subjective my opinions are. And if you actually look carefully at my posts you’ll find that other than mentioning certain features of FCPX that are simply missing at the moment, I never venture an opinion on the software itself. I will discuss theoretical methodologies that I prefer, but I don’t slam X as a piece of software. I can’t, I’ve never used it so how can I slam it?

I do however slam people whose proclamations I find unreasonable.

The war is over. FCPX is here, your doing well with it, Tony West is doing well with it, The Yeti is doing well with it. Many other people think it’s not for them. Some are still on the fence (you’d be amazed at what group I’m in.) Every critique of X is not a critique of everyone using X, nor is it a vote on it’s pro or unpro-fessionalism. That ship has sailed, professionals are using it. How many and what type of work they are doing is yet to be determined.

[Bill Davis] “I find it easy to attribute dismissal and condemnation to you, because we argue.”

Yes we do.

[Bill Davis] “So the lightbulb for me was to understand that there might actually be different intent behind the words that you, or Chris’s or Aindreas might actually THINK they are putting into what they write.”

Sometimes I think it’s the reader who misses the intent, sometimes the writer misspeaks.

[Bill Davis] “You guys missed the meetup in Las Vegas, but the four of us sat at a table for nearly three hours and nobody had an argument or a hassle. Everyone listened. Everyone was respectful. And more than that – it was fun. “

I would have enjoyed it. I’ve already met Walter and I would enjoy meeting everyone who makes the effort to post here.

[Bill Davis] “So I’m just pointing out that probably half the vitriol here is actually nothing more or less than dumb mistakes on the parts of EVERYONE here, myself firmly included in misinterpreting TONE.”

Is this where we kiss and sing Kumbaya?

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

[Christian Schumacher]

[Bret Williams] “Can Avid open a composer file from 1992?”

Not sure from 92, but an Avid bin can be interchangeably opened by any avid system…
Meaning that a sequence created today on Avid 6 can be opened in an ancient one from the 90’s.
(and of course, an older one can also be opened in a newer system)

Of course there are some gotchas, like features that didn’t exist or some that have changed, etc…
Not talking about media here, but editing.

[Herb Sevush]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “Craig Seeman, in a parking lot, after putting the flower pot on the balcony, speaking to the unseen professional FCPX hordes; leading quiet, fearful, completely silent, magnetic lives.”

This should be the blurb under a New Yorker cartoon.

Aindreas, you are a peach.

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