-
FCP X Strikes Again
-
[Bill Davis] “Heck, if someone is cutting movie trailers – and being delivered only source footage with proper color grades in place, then it’s doubtful they’d ever need to be an amateur colorist, right?”
I’m not sure this is correct, at least from my experience.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “[Bill Davis] “Heck, if someone is cutting movie trailers – and being delivered only source footage with proper color grades in place, then it’s doubtful they’d ever need to be an amateur colorist, right?”
I’m not sure this is correct, at least from my experience.”
It is not. 🙂 As you know, what trailer editors get are washed out, crappily duplicated Low Res Dailies or WIP’s covered with watermarks and burn-ins through which one can barely make out the actual picture.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “Yes, but it’s not our job to make it look any better, right?”
Of course not. 😉
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
Yeah, well I have out of town guests, and a three word answer was all I had time for!
Seriously, think about software bugs as bad edits. So, how many times would you say, “I’ll wait til this airs before I do the revisions.” I’m hoping never. Stuff gets through sure, but you never intentionally let illegal color or clipped audio or misspelled graphics hit the air. And when they do you re-evaluate your processes ’cause something needs to change. And it costs more to fix because now you’re working for free (or eating into the next job) and you may have just lost a client. Put a value on that!
It ain’t a perfect world, but to knowingly release bad code that people are paying for is not acceptable. And don’t forget that a new update that’s kinda flakey to you may just be because you have a frame of reference having the last version to compare it to. To the first time buyer it’s just bad software.
So why should Apple care? I mean in both cases they’ve got your money, right? Well, I think they’re better than that. And I want to do business with companies that are better than that.
-
So genuinely curously, who’s doing this better?
I’m talking about complex digital media software that’s still in it’s “hot” development stage?
(tho not sure AVID really qualifies on that note but if so, anyone can chime in)
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Charlie Austin] “I’m not sure this is correct, at least from my experience.”
It is not. 🙂 As you know, what trailer editors get are washed out, crappily duplicated Low Res Dailies or WIP’s covered with watermarks and burn-ins through which one can barely make out the actual picture.”
“Hi marketing team. We’re the editors and we appreciate how hard you work to sell this stuff, so we bought you doughnuts. Enjoy.
NOTE NEVER SEEN IN ANY POST FACILITY ANYWHERE.Suits verses the Creatives and all.
Will the insanity ever end!
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Bill Davis] “Suits verses the Creatives and all.”
Actually, it’s not really an adversarial relationship between our clients and ourselves. We’re all working in the sausage factory. 🙂 We actually have gotten donuts from a client at least once. And we’ve sent them cookies. 🙂
It’s those damn filmmakers! They should only send us final picture so we’d never have to clean it up! 😉
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Simon Ubsdell] ”
I appreciate that Adobe are having a push to improve the documentation and that’s great but if there’s bragging about length of manual PDFs to be done, let’s remember that the manual for Apple Motion 5 runs to 1432 pages and is a terrific model for how to do this kind of thing.”Nope, wasn’t bragging. Just pointing out that there is a lot of useful information there that will address many users questions. You turned it into a measuring contest, not me.
-
[Dennis Radeke] “Nope, wasn’t bragging. Just pointing out that there is a lot of useful information there that will address many users questions. You turned it into a measuring contest, not me.”
Sorry, I misunderstood – I obviously misread this …
[Dennis Radeke] “Our reference PDF currently clocks in at 458 pages.”
The phrase “clocks in at” is almost always used only when the speaker/writer wants to draw attention to an impressive statistic – in fact I’m sure I’ve ever seen it used an other way.
But presumably you weren’t using it like that here. What you meant to say was: “Our reference PDF has 458 pages” though I’m not quite sure why you thought that disembodied fact would be of interest.
In all seriousness though, if one had to look for a model of how to prepare a manual for something like Premiere, Apple’s documentation for Motion 5 is a really outstanding example of how to do it. Plenty of entry level discussion of key concepts for the beginner including some great background on basic video principles. Easy to access what you need. Good examples of how to use some of the more complex processes. Very readable. It’s a fine job.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up