-
FCP X hits 3.5 Million users?
-
[Oliver Peters] “I guess the thought is to focus on tools they’ll likely encounter in the professional film, TV and media world.”
I was asked to do a four hour tutorial on Resolve at a local college to Visual Arts students. By the end the supervisor was saying that they would seriously consider dropping their Pr subscription and just using Resolve in networked collaboration. They are Mac based and have X available but they mostly encourage Pr and now Resolve over X because that’s what local production companies are using.
So that very reason of training for the professional market place is behind the thought to use Resolve as potentially their primary tool. I said it was premature to drop Pr but teaching Resolve makes excellent sense. X is not in the mix however other than letting student have exposure to it.
-
[Oliver Peters] ” I guess the thought is to focus on tools they’ll likely encounter in the professional film, TV and media world.”
It trips me out that teachers teach anything but Avid and Premiere for the same reason.
Lets be honest – at 20 years old – no one aspiring to be an editor says I want to make corporate video or wedding videos or even trailers for that matter .They all want to cut feature films. In my day TV was looked waaaayyyy down upon to the point the teachers wouldn’t encourage that, its a good starting point. It was films or nothing.
Since films are mostly cut on Avid (and a little on premiere i guess) why on earth would you intro FCPX into the curriculum ? It would put your students at a huge disadvantage in the current day to be thrust into a market only knowing a tool no ones using. Sure you will still learn story but your not going to get a job as a editor right out of school. Your going straight to the vault or the AE room where story doesn’t matter -you got to know the programs there using inside and out.
With that said – today is very different than when I went to film school even in 2004 , but Id have to imagine – except for TV now being just as legitimate as film in certain situations – kids still dream about being at the top. Knowing FCPX as well as Bill Davis unfortunately isn’t going to get you there in the current climate.
It a great tool and I suggest everyone learns it to have in the back pocket – but to make a viable career off it in the major markets, is still but a pipe dream.
-
[Neil Goodman] ” today is very different than when I went to film school even in 2004″
2004? Wow, that’s interesting. I was in school in the mid 80’s and television was very much a big deal then. To me, I considered working on the World Series or the Olympics as much as “The Top” as film (and I love film).
Prime example is the Oscars. They are having to jump through hoops to get people to watch it on “TV”. That’s the best film has to offer and the ratings are not what they would like. I love it myself, but it is what it is.
Having said that, I agree with your main point. To me, Avid is the stick shift of NLEs. Once you can drive that, you can get the hang of the rest of them.
-
Lets say that Feature film editing which many people here might hold as the pinnacle of the editing realm is like the NBA to a basketball player. How many jobs are there in the NBA as a ’player’ which might be analogous to being an editor? Number of NBA teams * players on team rosters = not that many jobs at the top of the basketball world.
Same in the feature film world.
Still there are plenty of people making a living cutting videos and that number isn’t going down…
If Casey Neistat cuts his stuff on X, I’m not even sure he cuts his own videos but lets say he does. You may or may not like Neistat videos, but he’s making bank off youtube with the videos he puts out. While not feature film editing, his case is clearly a commercial success which is inextricably linked to his use of an editing platform to tell visual stories.
There are tons of people out there editing videos these days compared to 20 years ago as the price of entry to making a video has plummeted to tiny fractions of what was in say the year 2000. The commercial opportunities have greatly expanded and while cutting a feature still might be the pinnacle for some, making a Casey Neistat type of living off of making videos is certainly a strong lure to many up and coming editors. -
[Mark Smith] “Lets say that Feature film editing which many people here might hold as the pinnacle of the editing realm is like the NBA to a basketball player. How many jobs are there in the NBA as a ’player’ which might be analogous to being an editor? Number of NBA teams * players on team rosters = not that many jobs at the top of the basketball world.
Same in the feature film world.
Still there are plenty of people making a living cutting videos and that number isn’t going down…
If Casey Neistat cuts his stuff on X, I’m not even sure he cuts his own videos but lets say he does. You may or may not like Neistat videos, but he’s making bank off youtube with the videos he puts out. While not feature film editing, his case is clearly a commercial success which is inextricably linked to his use of an editing platform to tell visual stories.
There are tons of people out there editing videos these days compared to 20 years ago as the price of entry to making a video has plummeted to tiny fractions of what was in say the year 2000. The commercial opportunities have greatly expanded and while cutting a feature still might be the pinnacle for some, making a Casey Neistat type of living off of making videos is certainly a strong lure to many up and coming editors.”I agree – and now there are kids who do indeed want nothing but to be the next Casey – so theyll follow that pathby vloging. But Id have to imagine at 20 years old – most kids entering into a film school have their eyes set on the prize and sadly enough barely any of them will make it there because like you said theres not enough positions and they’ll find there are plenty of alternatives to features once they enter the workforce or even other interesting jobs other than editor.
-
[Tony West] “004? Wow, that’s interesting.”
We had a staff that all came from features and were pretty snobby about it. Keep in mind the only “good” TV at that time was HBO. Good meaning rivaling feature film quality. Everything else was prime time sitcoms and award/comeptition shows. This was also just before the reality boom and the writers strike. Now I’d rather work in TV than features – go figure.
-
[Neil Goodman] “Since films are mostly cut on Avid (and a little on premiere i guess) why on earth would you intro FCPX into the curriculum?”
You got to figure that at the start of X, schools were coming off of a growing FCP7 presence. So, in spite of misgivings, many believed in Apple’s sales pitch. Apple has a very solid education presence, so there’s also a logical path from high school to college. Hence, you see a lot of FCPX in these circles and there’s nothing wrong with that. Let students make up their own mind.
However, if you are training for specific job skills, like cutting or mixing feature films, then the weight shifts to Media Composer and Pro Tools. Since in 7 years, FCPX (and for that matter Logic Pro X) hasn’t taken the film world by storm, the traditional choices are still the safer bit.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Oliver Peters] “You got to figure that at the start of X, schools were coming off of a growing FCP7 presence. So, in spite of misgivings, many believed in Apple’s sales pitch. Apple has a very solid education presence, so there’s also a logical path from high school to college. Hence, you see a lot of FCPX in these circles and there’s nothing wrong with that. Let students make up their own mind.”
Sure at the beginning 7 years ago it would have been ok to assume that X would eventually gain traction – now that is has little to none traction in that world – Id say its ok to steer the students in the direction best suited for success.
-
[Oliver Peters] “Since in 7 years, FCPX (and for that matter Logic Pro X) hasn’t taken the film world by storm, the traditional choices are still the safer bit.”
To be fair – Logic could and I dont think ever was supposed to compete with protools
It was born a midi creation app – intended mainly for virtual instruments and composition . Audio recording and editing was eventually an after thought back when it was a PC only program. Since then the audio recording editing side of things hasn’t matured barely at all while the midi side gets more and more robust. Pro tools started as Audio then added midi and its midi is still a joke compared to logic.
Its very common that people make songs in logic, write the music etc then bounce the parts over to pro tools to record and mix/ polish.
-
[Neil Goodman] “To be fair – Logic could and I don’t think ever was supposed to compete with protools …
…Its very common that people make songs in logic, write the music etc then bounce the parts over to pro tools to record and mix/ polish.”While LPX is very capable for sound design/mixing, it’s by and large a composer’s tool. Coupled with a solid I/O, such as from Apogee, I would argue the recording results are superior to Pro Tools. It’s had success in the film/TV arena on that front.
Of course, a few other tools, like Nuendo, also compete in that space. But for audio post, Pro Tools remains king-of-the-hill. Of course, this is aided by the fact that Avid’s acquisition of Euphonix has allowed them to go heavy into the hardware side of mixing.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up