FCPX Dogs, New Names

[John Rofrano]

[Steve Connor] “I’m a little confused with all the comments about there being no debate on FCPX here, I must be looking at the wrong forum!”

Let me be more specific. What I and others had said was that “the debate as to whether FCP X can be used by professionals is over… lots of us are making money every day using it”. The debate that remains is the same debate as whether to use any other NLE. So it’s not that there is no debate… it’s that the debate pertains to every NLE so let’s rename the forum to a more generic NLE Debate forum and attract the proper audience.

[Steve Connor] “Other option is to rename this one and change the FCPX techniques forum to a broad FCPX forum similar to the old Final Cut Pro forum which managed to cover both techniques and debate for so many years.”

Agreed! The FCPX Techniques forums confuses me. Once again, I’m a new FCP X editor and I was very confused about where to post FCP X questions. The name “FCP X Techniques” suggests to me that it’s a “tips and techniques” form and not a “help” forum. But the Final Cut Pro forum looks like it’s a FCP 7 only forum. I’m now seeing people post FCP X questions in both the Final Cut Pro forums and the FCP X Techniques form so once again it “fails to encourage group discussion” because it’s not clear what the “group” is all about and it actually fractures the “group” instead of uniting it.

We have 4 Final Cut Pro forums:

Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
Apple FCPX Techniques
Apple Final Cut Pro
Apple Final Cut Pro basics

Do we really need that many forums to discuss one product? Maybe we just need a Final Cut Pro 7 and a Final Cut Pro X forum and that’s it and only because those versions are so different from each other. Any debates can occur in their respective forums. I would suggest that the “real” debate is how much longer can you cling to the cold dead FCP 7 before it stops working? 😉 Maybe we should start a “FCP 7: Is is dead Jim? The Debate” forum? (tongue planted firmly in cheek)

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

[Jeremy Garchow]

[John Rofrano] “some of us have suggested that the “FCP X or not debate” has come and gone, and the current thread topics seem to support this (no one is talking about that anymore) “

That isn’t really true, though. Tracks vs trackless comes up a lot. A surprising amount, really.

In the very long Old Dogs New Tricks thread, ‘X or not’ is the underlying theme. X and the people that use it vs everyone else.

The debate as a result of the EOL of FCS3, and how X is being used in professional environments, still happens here. And when Apple decides to release a new version of X to catch up with Yosemite, there may be more conversation.

I ask you what I asked Scott. What is it about this forum that needs to change? It can’t only be the name. In your opinion, what would changing the name do? Do you feel the conversations are stagnant? Do you feel that changing the name will invite new people? How will they find it? Do you think “FCPX” or “or not” deters people from finding or posting here? Do you want to minimize any hostility?

If you look past the name on the door, it seems like what people want is already here. I also think that if you want to change the discussion, or change the tone, then start new discussions, ask crazy questions, and help curate the tone.

X’s viability as a professional NLE isn’t on the debate platform anymore, but I do think it’s usefulness to certain people, industries, situations, and preferences is still up for debate, and out of those conversations, we all learn a little bit more about how others solve problems, and perhaps learn something new.

There are also developers and their representatives here. Having these conversations, in the very broad context of FCPX/Apple may spark ideas for new tools, not just on fcpx, but other platforms as well. That seems like it’s good for all of us, no matter the name on the tin.

[Scott Witthaus]

[Steve Connor] “Or start a new forum and go there!”

Brilliant.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter

[Mark Suszko]

Why not “Technology Debates”? And FCPX can certainly be a main subject. But it opens the floor to welcoming more and wider non-specific topics.

Or, my second choice title:

“Everything you know is wrong”.

[John Rofrano]

[Jeremy Garchow] “I ask you what I asked Scott. What is it about this forum that needs to change? It can’t only be the name. In your opinion, what would changing the name do? Do you feel the conversations are stagnant? Do you feel that changing the name will invite new people? How will they find it? Do you think “FCPX” or “or not” deters people from finding or posting here? Do you want to minimize any hostility? “

I’d like the forum name to reflect the content. That would make it easier for people to find things here on the COW. I got a lot out of the “FCPX on 5K iMac” thread and I participated in it. I would have never looked for a thread like that in a forum called “Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate”. If I wanted to ask such a question, I also would not have asked it it a forum called “Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate”. So that’s my point. There is a lot of good information being posted in this forum that has more to do with the Apple ecosystem in general than “FCP X or Not” in particular. So I do feel that the name deters people from looking inside and seeing that the debate is greater than “FCP X or Not”. We are selling ourselves short by limiting it’s name to some debate about whether to use FCP X or not as the name currently implies.

[Jeremy Garchow] “If you look past the name on the door, it seems like what people want is already here. I also think that if you want to change the discussion, or change the tone, then start new discussions, ask crazy questions, and help curate the tone. “

No doubt but if the “name on the door” said “Janitor’s Closet” would you open it if you were looking for the bathroom? Labels are very important. I’m suggesting that the “name on the door” is misleading, not that the content within is not valuable. You have to understand that I’m giving you the perspective of a newcomer to FCP. I wasn’t using FCP three years ago so I don’t know what the debate was all about. I started using FCP X this year and I’m looking for help and to help others and the Creative COW should be the place where people come to learn and share regardless of their history here. The forum name is all we have to go by for those of us who are not “old FCP dogs”.

[Jeremy Garchow] “I don’t think X’s viability as a professional NLE is on the debate platform anymore, but I do think it’s usefulness to certain people, industries, situations, and preferences is still up for debate, and out of those conversations, we all learn a little bit more about how others solve problems, and perhaps learn something new. “

This is an excellent point worthy of it’s own thread. Should a tool designed to be used to create feature films also be good to create nightly news broadcasts? The edit decision I’m about to make in a feature film will live for many years and be viewed by millions of people. The edit decision I’m about to make in an evening newscast will live for 15 frames and never be seen again. Is the same tool appropriate for making those two decisions? Perhaps the former requires considerable thought and planning and carefully placing a clip on track that you don’t want to move until you tell it to move and the later would benefit from tossing the clip on a magnetic timeline and moving the edges around until it feels right and darn it. I want the lower third (as a connected clip) to move when I move the talent’s face and not think about needing to adjust both!

So I don’t see why FCP X needs to be all things to all people. Personally, I think the magnetic timeline is brilliant and I would never edit with a track based editor again. And THAT is at the core of “the debate”.

Consider this: If the first developers of word processors mimicked the real world like legacy NLE’s attempt to do, your word processor would ring the computers bell when you approached 80 characters and you would have to press the Carriage Return to go to the next line and if you made a mistake, you would need go to the tool bar and grab the “white-out” tool and drag it over the text to change. That would be an absolutely ridiculous design but that is EXACTLY how every other NLE is designed with “bins” and “razor blades” and dialog boxes where you “measure twice before you cut once” and it’s silly to work in such an archaic fashion because the whole thing is none destructive! You only need to measure once…heck you probably don’t need to measure at all… just drop it on the timeline and directly manipulate it until it feels right. There must be a tradeoff between “familiarity” and re-inventing what it means to edit video. I feel that too many people cling to the familiar and miss out on how much better it could be.

At the end of the day, the value that us “old dogs” have (and I’m including myself here as a video editor for over 14 years) is that we know how to “tell a story”. We know how to make an edit look seamless and not draw attention to itself. It doesn’t matter what tool we use to do this because the tool doesn’t tell us how… our experience tells us how. The tools should get out of our way and make our lives easier and take advantage of new concepts like “meta-data” instead of restricting us to old concepts like “bins” and enable us to do more in new and different ways. That is the essence of what we do.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

[Bill Davis]

OK, some fair points.

I would ask you to consider the question of the percentage of those editors who feels it “does not meet their needs” – who actually understand the capabilities of the software – verses the percentage of those who read about it and dismissed it a while ago, establishing a view of its suitability that persists regardless of the actual facts.

Last night I took part on the 100th FCP X Grill show where Nashville editor Scott Simmonds (who cuts on AVID and Premier as well as X) was talking about how his client base is often shocked when he chooses X to do work. He implied that the perception many of his clients and collegues still carry is that X isn’t a viable pro editing choice. It’s only when he explains the actual capabilities of the software and how those match the project needs, that they start to accept his thinking.

So, the perception/reality gap is still very real.

I know that some don’t feel that this forum name perpetuates that. I still do. But it’s not the end of the world. It hasn’t stopped X adoption by editors yet. And as long as I see the continuing and constantly growing participation of new folks coming here who’ve clearly learned and understand the software, I’m cool with it.

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.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[John Rofrano] “I’d like the forum name to reflect the content. That would make it easier for people to find things here on the COW. I got a lot out of the “FCPX on 5K iMac” thread and I participated in it. I would have never looked for a thread like that in a forum called “Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate”.”

So, what would the forum name have to be in order for you to find that thread as a new comer?

And then what would the forum name have to be to find the thread about Fusion vs After Effects, and the Blackmagification and consolidation of post?

Or what would the forum name have to be to cover all of the general topics that we cover here? And if you are running the business that is Creative COW, how do you attract people to that forum and make it worth while to advertisers as well as us participants?

[John Rofrano] “No doubt but if the “name on the door” said “Janitor’s Closet” would you open it if you were looking for the bathroom? Labels are very important. “

Of course they are. And context is also important. And if I had to go bad enough, I might take a leak in the utility sink. This forum grew out of a very specific context, and Tim’s post covers all of that. His first point? He is open to changing the name, but please give a better name. The rules: it has to include “FCPX”, and “Debate”.

[John Rofrano] “So I don’t see why FCP X needs to be all things to all people. Personally, I think the magnetic timeline is brilliant and I would never edit with a track based editor again. And THAT is at the core of “the debate”. “

And that’s how this forum came to be and why it’s still here. Yes, the subjects can expand beyond the magnetic timeline, but at the same time, the context always seems to come back to whether or not X can handle certain workflows, or not.

[John Rofrano]

[Jeremy Garchow] “So, what would the forum name have to be in order for you to find that thread as a new comer?”

I would have expected to find “FCPX on 5K iMac” thread in the “Final Cut Pro X” forum but there isn’t one! There is an “FCPX Techniques” form which, as I said, I thought was a “tips and techniques” forum which has nothing to do with iMac 5K. And there is this “debate” forum about using “FCPX or Not” which doesn’t fit. So the forum I would expect to find that thread under doesn’t exist because I would expect it to be in a general FCPX forum.

[Jeremy Garchow] “And then what would the forum name have to be to find the thread about Fusion vs After Effects, and the Blackmagification and consolidation of post?”

I’d expect to find that one in either the Fusion forum or the After Effects forum. That’s where I would image that those experts would hang out. Blackmagification and consolidation of post is starting to hint at a more generic forum about how we work that is not about “FCPX or Not” (…hold that thought)

[Jeremy Garchow] “The rules: it has to include “FCPX”, and “Debate”.”

I must have missed that rule. Can we also have a rule then that all posts that are not about FCPX be deleted because they are off-topic? in other words, I’m not sure that I agree with that rule but let’s go with it for now because Tim makes the rules. 🙂

[Jeremy Garchow] “And that’s how this forum came to be and why it’s still here. Yes, the subjects can expand beyond the magnetic timeline, but at the same time, the context always seems to come back to whether or not X can handle certain workflows, or not.”

Good point. Perhaps we should rename it:

FCPX Workflows: The Debate

That would attract anyone using FCP X who is interested in debating the merits of various workflows. I could even argue that how FCPX runs on an iMac 5K would fall under that as well. 😉

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

[Herb Sevush]

[Scott Witthaus] “Someone please explain to me why this general thrashing-about debate forum has anything to do with “FCPX Or Not”. Maybe when it first was released and there was plenty of teeth gnashing over the EOL of Legacy, but that’s long gone now.”

Why did Apple call their brand new program Final Cut, when it quite definitely, and proudly, had absolutely nothing in common with that very well known product? Obviously Apple thought their was value in the name itself, brand recognition based on the history of the product. Which is why this forum keeps it’s original name, even thought the circumstances have changed. “FCPX or not” is a brand name that has value, based on it’s history. Come up with a new name so good that it creates more value than your giving up and then maybe you’ll convince the powers that be.

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

[Michael Gissing]

[Bill Davis]”So, the perception/reality gap is still very real. ”

Which is why this forum does good service to the post industry.

The common pattern for name changing seems to be when new people find the forum and say they didn’t think to look in a forum with FCPX in the name. Given that Tim has stated the history behind parts of the name staying, then those of us who have to avoid the threads that belong in techniques will continue to put up with that along with bewildered newcomers who complain that they didn’t think to look in this forum.

For me the debate is far from over. I am often asked to recommend software and hardware. This forum helps me to offer informed advice. There is still a gut reaction to not wanting to change paradigm and that is perfectly valid even if it stupefies long term X users. X is the only mainstream NLE that is not cross platform. Still a big issue for some. I still struggle more with X to get audio out and into another system. Trackless and roles should help but many editors do not even know how to drive this. Still a debatable issue.

xmls and changing systems rather than a complete edit & finishing tool. Standardising an xml formats versus proprietary. All still issues in my world. Plugin standards and being able to have matching plugins across NLEs (apart from subscription or not). Relying on third parties to affect interchange.

And finally big picture issues like formats, codecs frame rates. We need a debate forum but not really to debate the name. Sorry if it takes years for some to find it. Sorry if it wanders into non debate areas. Gratuitous change is what started this forum so lets just leave the name.