-
FCPX Trumps Avid
-
Jason Jenkins – “I have no idea what the Avid guy charges, but I don’t think $150/hr is racing to the bottom. In fact, I’ve worked long and hard to get up to that.”
Very happy to hear that, was afraid you were going to say you were charging something like $25/hr. Stick to your rates, this is hard work and as you know it cost more than money, it cost time! At that rate you can afford the time it takes to do this. I’ve had clients who have had sticker shock over rates before. So much so, they decided to try it themselves. What they found was, they weren’t necessarily paying me for the time I spent working on their project, they were paying me for all the time I’ve spent learning the craft. They could pay me for an hour at $150, or they could spend 6 hours of their own time figuring out what experience has already taught me. In the end, they’re not buying my time, they’re buying my experience.
Kudos to getting a good rate!
Jason Jenkins – “I agree, but I couldn’t resist posting my story with an inflammatory subject line! :)”
Kinda like wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt to a Republican debate?
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv -
[Jason Jenkins] “True Story:
Potential Client (via Email): I found you on Creative Cow. Can you do some editing for me? I do rough cuts in iMovie and I need someone to polish them up.
Me: Sure! I use FCPX and I can import your iMovie project directly.
Client: That’s great! I spent days communicating with another editor, only to find out he edits on Avid and can’t do anything with my iMovie projects.”
Thanks for that Jason. I’ve had a couple of jobs using iMovie import as well. There are a number of companies who start out with either rough cuts, first cuts (Randy Ubilos should have won that naming issue) who end up taking their work to a “real editor.”
BTW also proves my point that potential clients really do find people on the COW. Which is why I think one’s personal behavior does make a difference. The internet is not a hiding place.
-
[Walter Soyka] “How about looking at the question of NLE platform attracting clients another way. Among discerning clients seeking post-production services (not full-service, end-to-end production), which ones of these statements would they like most to hear?
“We’ll be cutting your project on an Avid in our fully-equipped suite.”
“We’ll be cutting your project on FCP7 in our fully-equipped suite.”
“We’ll be cutting your project on FCPX in our fully-equipped suite.”
“See you and raise you… (if you’ll allow a string bet)
The story…
Through a friend of a friend you secure an amazingly talented singer/songwriter to appear at your companies year end party.
Unfortunately we haven’t the budget to rent a wonderful piano that night, all that’s available is the cheap piano in the lounge.
So do you tell the entertainer the deal’s off? 10 out of 10 times the answer is no.
You know the talent isn’t in the tool, and you expect that while someone who’s good at what they do might have a “preference” for a particular tool – the tool and the talent are separate things.
So if thats true (and it largely is) then this concept starts out with little persuasive power. We’re arguing mis-perceptions, not something that truly sets the skills of pros and amateurs apart.
As long as the editor knows how to push the buttons, they can edit on anything. Just as a person who knows how to press the keys on a Steinway can also rock on a Casio.
The point is that clients who hire something like “general editing” based on tools rather than talent are all too often just playing games. People who really understand the truth know that unless there’s a specific capability that’s not present in a specific tool (which is the most solid argument against X at this point, IMO) – then the software you cut on is a, very, very minor piece of the puzzle. Yes, pros often use the finest tools. But not always. And nobody argues that ELTON JOHN with a lousy bar piano can’t entertain rings around you or me or anyone else we know sitting at a Steinway.
“What do you cut on?” is one of the classic trigger phrases that I’m dealing with a newbie and need to consider doubling my rate if I take a gig, because their brain isn’t on THEIR job – which is assessing the editor’s talent and capabilities – but rather than impressing themselves with their “insider” knowledge.
In truth, I can’t remember the last “serious” client who even knows what software I use. (But I can name a number of non-pros – including all my kids friends, half the still photogs I know, and even my dentist, who have an “opinion” on Avid, vs Adobe vs X!)
The above is not always true. And I freely admit that sometimes tools are an indicator of an artists abilities – but, IMO, that is neither universal, dependable, nor even a very smart standard in a world where yesterday’s expensive rare tool is regularly supplanted by tools that cost much less, but are every bit as professional – Final Cut Pro Legacy being a prime example, after all.
FWIW.
“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
-
[Nick Toth] “In my experience they just want the job done reasonably well within their budget and time constraints.”
Yes, Nick
I agree big time with this.
If they had the skill and knowledge that we do they wouldn’t need us.
They have an idea in their heads and they want us to make it happen.
When we do that they are happy. However we get there.
-
[Nick Toth] “I’ve earned a decent living doing video production and editing for nearly 30 years. Very rarely has a client been overly concerned with many of the issues that the professionals on these forums talk about. In my experience they just want the job done reasonably well within their budget and time constraints. They don’t otherwise care if I were to use a pinhole camera and stop-motion to get it done.”
That may be how it works where you live. So, that’s your frame of reference. But, the rest of the world doesn’t always function the same way.
Here in Los Angeles, where most production companies own their own editing system(s), freelancers are typically hired to either work on in the client’s edit bay, or their hired to finish on a similar system. Generalities of one’s own experience, even when it over 30-years, don’t necessarily apply to others.
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.comDon’t miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing “The Whale” to the Big Screen:
https://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfitandSuzanneChisholm/1POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.
-
[David Roth Weiss] “Generalities of one’s own experience, even when it over 30-years, don’t necessarily apply to others.”
Wise words
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
[Steve Connor] “Wise words”
Did we agree once again Steve, or was that a subtle dig? I need to know so I can keep my scoreboard up to date. 🙂
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.comDon’t miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing “The Whale” to the Big Screen:
https://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfitandSuzanneChisholm/1POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.
-
Before I get into my response, I’d like to add that none of this is meant to knock FCPX. There are some things I really do like about it, and I think that it can be the right tool for plenty of professional work. That said, there is still quite a bit of work that it’s just not ready for, and as professionals, I think we need to understand when using FCPX is and is not appropriate.
[Bill Davis] “See you and raise you… (if you’ll allow a string bet)”
Any time!
[Bill Davis] “Through a friend of a friend you secure an amazingly talented singer/songwriter to appear at your companies year end party. Unfortunately we haven’t the budget to rent a wonderful piano that night, all that’s available is the cheap piano in the lounge. So do you tell the entertainer the deal’s off? 10 out of 10 times the answer is no.”
I was talking about a real-world production scenario, not a contrived talent-versus-tool argument.
Can an amazing musician perform on a cheap lounge piano? Yes. Would they choose the cheap lounge piano as their instrument of choice? No.
[Bill Davis] “You know the talent isn’t in the tool, and you expect that while someone who’s good at what they do might have a “preference” for a particular tool – the tool and the talent are separate things. As long as the editor knows how to push the buttons, they can edit on anything. Just as a person who knows how to press the keys on a Steinway can also rock on a Casio.”
I agree, to a point — but I think that selecting the appropriate tool for the job is often an important part of what we do.
Perhaps you’d be willing to put your money where your mouth is, tell all your clients that they’re hiring you for your talent and that your tools don’t matter, then rock all your 2012 client projects on Windows Movie Maker?
[Bill Davis] “Yes, pros often use the finest tools. But not always. And nobody argues that ELTON JOHN with a lousy bar piano can’t entertain rings around you or me or anyone else we know sitting at a Steinway.”
Sir Elton specifically prefers Yamaha grand pianos, which are fitted with MIDI rail pickups underneath the keyboard. He dropped Steinway because he didn’t feel the Steinway’s tone cut through the band well enough. He seems to believe the tool does matter to his performance.
I don’t believe he’s ever toured with a Casio.
[Bill Davis] “The point is that clients who hire something like “general editing” based on tools rather than talent are all too often just playing games. People who really understand the truth know that unless there’s a specific capability that’s not present in a specific tool (which is the most solid argument against X at this point, IMO) – then the software you cut on is a, very, very minor piece of the puzzle.”
Again, as in my response to Nick, I think this depends on what the client is hiring you for. For clients like agencies and production companies — clients who must concern themselves with the workflow as well as the final product — the software you cut on matters a great deal.
Some of my clients don’t care what tools I use. Others require me to use specific tools, and they have legitimate reasons.
[Bill Davis] “”What do you cut on?” is one of the classic trigger phrases that I’m dealing with a newbie and need to consider doubling my rate if I take a gig, because their brain isn’t on THEIR job – which is assessing the editor’s talent and capabilities – but rather than impressing themselves with their “insider” knowledge.”
Again, it depends on who’s asking, and you’re right that an end client not involved in media production can’t use the answer to that question to make an informed decision about hiring you.
From a producer or post supervisor, though, that question can be a matter of assessing an editor’s capabilities. For example, if you told me you were cutting with FCPX, I’d be leery of handing you a job with interlaced footage from a broad variety of sources. I’d want to know what your plan was to avoid the reversed field issues that I see on broadcast TV on a near-daily basis.
[Bill Davis] “And I freely admit that sometimes tools are an indicator of an artists abilities – but, IMO, that is neither universal, dependable, nor even a very smart standard in a world where yesterday’s expensive rare tool is regularly supplanted by tools that cost much less, but are every bit as professional – Final Cut Pro Legacy being a prime example, after all.”
I thought we were in agreement that FCP v1, at its release, was decidedly not “every bit as professional” as Avid at the time, but rather that it matured over time. The stigma of cutting on FCP did fade away as the software improved.
I’m certainly not saying that the NLE an editor uses is a reasonable proxy for gauging their skill. We are in absolute agreement there.
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 -
[Bill Davis] “Does this presume that the number would be more or less than the number of hands that would have gone up for Legacy six months after IT was released? Or are we requiring the sibling to perform at the level of it’s decade older brother simply because they have the same last name?”
I presume it would be about the same — near zero.
Are you arguing that FCPX should get a free pass because it’s new?
Who cares how FCPX v10.0.x compares to FCP v1.x? It’s not competing against v1. It’s competing against Avid MC 5.5/6.0, Premiere Pro CS5.5, and FCP7, so aren’t those reasonable standards to judge it by?
It some areas FCPX comes out ahead, but in some it comes out behind. At this point, I’m not seeing FCPX winning the “big budget gigs.” I don’t mean this to be derogatory or forward-looking; it’s just a simple statement about the post work I see being done in 2011.
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 -
[Oliver Peters] “like ad agencies”
I know of no one in the LA promo world that is considering it. I do know of a few boutiques who are thinking a bit harder about Premiere because they do so much AE work, but no fcp X.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up