FCP X and the “industry”

[Bill Davis]

=I’ll just say that from what I see, your “local news station” is seriously endangered. The last High Def spots I delivered to a major market broadcaster were bounced from my studio to the station, who forwarded the clips to Atlanta, who served them back to the market since that particular NBC affiliate had recently TORN OUT master control.

I further think that the “mid level production house” is an equally endangered species.

My reasoning is that as a talented person with a laptop can perform more and more of the functions of the on-line suite, the editing functions will move CLOSER to the data origination locations. In the past, when the producer or researcher or corporate client wanted to “make video” they needed to go to a fancy room in which to do that.

If ALL the same tasks can conceivably be done on a laptop – why wouldn’t the client want the editor to simply show up at the point where the project is being assembled when the team is ready to assemble it?

What FUNCTION does the production house serve if the tools don’t require fixed racks and serious HVAC requirements any longer?

We HAVE to think about what HAS happened and extrapolate that into the future.

A two room dedicated voicebooth/mixing board and half a mile of wiring was REQUIRED when I started doing professional voiceovers.

Now, a decent mic and a Zoom H4n in a small bag is EVERYTHING I need to do the same job – BETTER, FASTER, and CHEAPER.

Look around. It’s NOT the same out there. And if you keep thinking that it is, you’re doomed.

That’s what all I’m saying here.

“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’Conner

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Chris Kenny] “The dominant pattern in this industry over the last decade has been that new apps/techniques/approaches/whatever start with ‘outsiders’ (who don’t have unlimited budgets and aren’t wedded to current approaches), who prove them. They’re then picked up by more adventurous elites, which eventually makes them ‘safe’ for less adventurous elites, at which point they become accepted tools for high-end production.”

Chris,

That’s a pretty story. Is it true?

Also, and correct me if I’m wrong, I assume you’re casting Apple as an ‘outsider’, posed rebelliously against ‘elites’. Am I correct?

Franz.

[Thomas Frank]

Why does everybody argue about what format and what tool is professional?
Isn’t a professional a person that can take anything and through at him and he will make something out of it that worth awhile? Because of his experience in the field.
iPad camera with celluare uplink? Cool

[Carsten Orlt]

You are so spot on it hurts 🙂

Carsten

[Ben Scott]

not at all

you are one of the clever ones

[Chris Jacek]

[Andree Franks] “Isn’t a professional a person that can take anything and through at him and he will make something out of it that worth awhile?”

Not really. Ask a master carpenter to build a deck with a Swiss Army Knife and balsa wood, and I don’t think the results would be too good.

Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee

[Andrew Richards]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “Also, and correct me if I’m wrong, I assume you’re casting Apple as an ‘outsider’, posed rebelliously against ‘elites’. Am I correct?”

I read it as the outsider user, not the outsider software developer. For legacy FCP, this pattern was true. The high-end elite didn’t hop on board till after Soderbergh and Murch took the plunge, and even Soderbergh and Murch only did it a few years and a few major revs after FCP1 came out.

Best,
Andy

[Walter Soyka]

[Chris Kenny] “The dominant pattern in this industry over the last decade has been that new apps/techniques/approaches/whatever start with ‘outsiders’ (who don’t have unlimited budgets and aren’t wedded to current approaches), who prove them. They’re then picked up by more adventurous elites, which eventually makes them ‘safe’ for less adventurous elites, at which point they become accepted tools for high-end production. Whether you’re talking about the original FCP, AfterEffects or the Red One, it’s the same pattern.”

[Chris Kenny] “The question to ask about a product in FCP X’s position is not “Will elites accept it immediately?” but “Is there a unique value proposition here that could cause some talented outsider to choose this tool over other options and do something interesting with it?” That’s the first step. And I think the answer is very clearly “yes”.”

I agree with Chris — this pattern is real.

I’d add that “safety” or “prestige” were not the only factors that initially held FCP, After Effects, and RED ONE out of high-end production. Adopting FCP, AE, and RED all involved enduring quite a bit of workflow pain before their benefits could be realized. I think the same is true with FCPX.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events

[Chris Kenny]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “That’s a pretty story. Is it true?”

I provided several examples. I think so.

[Franz Bieberkopf] “Also, and correct me if I’m wrong, I assume you’re casting Apple as an ‘outsider’, posed rebelliously against ‘elites’. Am I correct?”

I was referring to ‘outsider’ vs. ‘elite’ users. But, yes, what Apple is doing with FCP X is a classic outsider attempt to introduce disruptive change into a market. It’s unusual because it’s coming from a company that was very much on this inside in this market… but Apple is a little crazy like that sometimes.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Richard Cardonna]

The problem with the anaolgy is that while those big guys used equipment that cost millions the low fcp did much more for much less.

So does fcpx do more than fcp or any other nle?

richard