-
Foreign Film 2016 Oscar Contender from Spain Edited in X.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Then why not just post that X was used on this movie and here is a link with more info and leave it at that? Why make an unrelated comment about Hollywood if you don’t want that to end up as part of the discussion too?
“Andrew,
Because my comment about Hollywood is in NO WAY unrelated. I got told time after time after time in discussions IN THIS FORUM that nobody in Hollywood (heck in ANY professional editing) was ever going to use X because it was fundamentally flawed software. And when I noted that it was gaining traction off-shore because that’s what I was hearing at the time. Turns out what I was hearing in other places was accurate.
That’s all.
That was the entire thesis of my comment. Opinions were expressed HERE two years ago. One was mine that X was a worthy (and perhaps even smart) editing option at the time.
And now we have evidence that this was true in places like Spain that were entirely off my radar.
I’ve never once trashed Premiere Pro or AVID or Vegas or any other actual editing approach (tho if you listen to some voices here – that’s precisely the light in which they seem to be desperately trying to re-cast my writings of the time.)
I’ve noted time an again that I’ve never used those other programs so I have no informed opinion of them at all. And so I have always tried to leave that for others to argue.
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.
-
It’s not a very detailed workflow piece and they don’t talk about why FCPX was a good choice for them.
-
[Bill Davis] “Because my comment about Hollywood is in NO WAY unrelated.”
Maybe I’m took your previous post too literally.
I guess it’s the word “worry” that lost me because Hollywood doesn’t worry or care about X. Hollywood doesn’t worry or care about PPro, or Resolve (as an NLE) or that much for Lightworks anymore, and, as a whole, it didn’t pay a lot attention to Legend either…
If what you were trying to get across was that Hollywood doesn’t use X but these guys did then I agree with you. Though if you want to talk about the movie they made and how X was involved I don’t see what that has to do with Hollywood other than to illustrate that, yes, you can make a movie with X but we’ve already been there with Focus (which is the more notable of the two examples).
Or I am I still missing the point and this is really isn’t about guys in Spain making a movie but about you being right about what you said years ago (hence the emphasis on the old version of X they used)?
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Or I am I still missing the point and this is really isn’t about guys in Spain making a movie but about you being right about what you said years ago (hence the emphasis on the old version of X they used)?”
Just to make it easier for you to understand, my friend, this the position I was trying to espouse in my post.l.
X has always been a vastly more capable video editing app than it has gotten credit for.
A large portion of the negativity that still surrounds its reputation is undeserved.
That message keeps getting promoted – particularly here where people like Aindreas and DRW have taken great pains over many, many months to constantly and publicly promote opinions that are contrary to the facts of it’s capabilities.
And, yes, I don’t like that. Precisely because I know that it works really, really well for many things that those who don’t use it keep trying to tell us that it can’t do.
Personal preferences are Fine. Allegations like someone saying that you can’t cut professional soundtracks because it’s somehow “crippled” relative to other NLEs only get corrected when interested parties can see other workflows like the one I posted – where people are regularly getting the very highest quality work done with X – a direct contradiction of the message “It’s not good enough for pro work” which is constantly implied in this forum – specifically over the past few weeks and specifically in the threads negatively comparing it to Premiere – which is a fine program – but NOT IMO objectively any better or worse for high level work.
Is that any clearer for you?
I take comfort in the responses to the thread this discussion spawned as to whether X still is fighting a false impression of capability. Clearly it is. I don’t care who’s fault that is. It’s incorrect. And I think that’s worth correcting BECAUSE just like it’s worthy competitors – its a great program that can help many editors have a great editing experience if they don’t get scared off by misinformation.
Simple as that.
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] “X has always been a vastly more capable video editing app than it has gotten credit for.
A large portion of the negativity that still surrounds its reputation is undeserved.
.
.
.
Is that any clearer for you?”
Much, thank you. And I agree that X has never been as bad as it’s most negative detractors try and paint it and that Apple getting X off on the wrong foot still negatively impacts it to this day. You don’t get a second chance to make a first impress, as they say.
[Bill Davis] “a direct contradiction of the message “It’s not good enough for pro work” which is constantly implied in this forum “
Outside a few posters I don’t see that blanket statement here much these days. People might mention particular workflows where other NLEs might be be better options, but I think lumping the whole forum into the ‘it’s not good enough for pro work’ category is inaccurate.
-
[Bill Davis] ” “It’s not good enough for pro work” which is constantly implied in this forum “
I don’t see this at all, hence the thread I started earlier. I do see a lot of intelligent discussion about workflow which is fascinating.
-
[Bill Davis] “A large portion of the negativity that still surrounds its reputation is undeserved.
That message keeps getting promoted – particularly here where people like Aindreas and DRW have taken great pains over many, many months to constantly and publicly promote opinions that are contrary to the facts of it’s capabilities.”
Actually, that’s a fabrication that mischaracterizes my messages here completely. The fact is, the majority of my posts are directed about the style (or lack of style) of the arguments here, not the capabilities of the application. As an example, in response to the question posed, doe’s anyone think FCP X is not professional software, my response was: [David Roth Weiss] “There are no unprofessional NLEs.”
And, with regard to the issue of the audio capabilities of X vs. Premiere as characterized in the quote below:
[Bill Davis] “Allegations like someone saying that you can’t cut professional soundtracks because it’s somehow “crippled” relative to other NLEs”, that too is a a complete mischaracterization of that conversation. While I admit to absolutely hating the entire magnetic timeline both in concept and in practice, I never said it was crippled, never said it prevented anyone from getting their work out the door. In fact below is my summary on the topic:[David Roth Weiss] “I would have to say in summary that, currently Adobe’s implementation is in fact the better and more accurate approach to sub-frame audio editing that better emulates the sub-frame editing capabilities of a DAW. This doesn’t mean that FCP X is for amateurs, or that editors using X can’t produce excellent work, including audio editing and mixing inside FCP X, only that in a fair comparison of both apps, at this point Adobe has the more advanced implementation of audio editing. To be fair, it’s also more expensive… But, also to be fair, with that added expense, the user also gets access to an even better audio editor (Audition), and the entire suite of additional apps as well.”
In addition, as a journalist by trade, when I make a mistake or quote someone else who made a mistake, I print a retraction, because I own my words once they go to print. That’s not something you typically do Bill, and if you’d like I’ll point that out in spades, but I have every confidence that I won’t need to, because though this post is clearly deserving of a Bill Davis retraction, I won’t be holding my breath.
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los AngelesDavid is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.
-
That is BS and you know it David. My only problem is with your supercilious attitude and knee jerk reactions.
Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.2, Final Cut Studio 2 & 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC: Mid 2015 MacBook Pro Retina 15″: 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro Retina 2015, i7, 500GB, M370X 2GB: Macbook Pro 17″ 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems -
[Jim Wiseman] “My only problem is with your supercilious attitude and knee jerk reactions.”
Jim, had I not earlier suggested you were “silly” because you won’t pay $50/month for software which you yourself said you “prefer,” I seriously doubt you’d even be writing to me now. BTW, since you explained that you’re working on pro bono stuff for the most part now, that was a good enough explanation for me.
With regard to the “supercilious attitude” you’ve attributed to me, why not delve into the Cow archives, which, as the #6 leading Cow poster of all time, contain some 16,432 of my posts, and see how just many actual examples of supercilious posts you can actually find?
To save you the trouble Jim, what you will find in the Cow archives will be, almost exclusively, many thousands of helpful pro bono consulting and technical troubleshooting responses to Cows in need, offering my help and experience on a host of different subjects I’ve worked hard to understand or even master. And, you will also find many popular articles, reviews, and tutorials drawn from my 45-years of industry experience as well.
So, if you’d like to try to make a legitimate case that actually proves your assertion, I encourage you to try. Do keep in mind however, that even if you’re able to find 164 examples in which you feel I’ve exhibited a “supercilious attitude,” that would constitute less than 1% of my activity on the Cow since it’s inception, which is hopefully within the bounds of correctness for most of us imperfect human beings. If you disagree, please let me know and I’ll apologize openly for being less than perfect.
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los AngelesDavid is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.
-
OMG! Are those tracks? Looks like another piece of dinosaur technology! 😉
The magnetic timeline, it’s magnetic-o-matic!
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up