-
I guess it’s So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
-
Glen, both you and Herb are proving my point. I believe FCPX is in it’s DSLR moment. Timecode, who needs it? Tracks who needs them? FCPX obviously needs a few more firmware updates before the bulk of professionals will finally say, well, it’s a tool that I can use (or not).
-
[Herb Sevush] “Depends on the design and quality of the glass, no? “
Of course, but I guess I am specifically talking about the high end Canon still glass. Still glass is not made to the specs of film glass. It is why still and film lenses cost what they do and weigh as much as they do. They serve different purposes yet, people use them for other purposes. Still lenses are less exacting, film lenses are more exact, with all kinds of variations in between in the quality of being exact.
-
“Glen, both you and Herb are proving my point. I believe FCPX is in it’s DSLR moment.”
My point was the DSLR’s had huge negatives but provided a product I either couldn’t get, or couldn’t afford to get any other way. What product is FCPX providing that you can’t get with PPro?
If the only advantage of FCPX is speed of editing, then it would have to be waaayyyy faster to make up for the negatives, and even then it would only be useful in it’s much more limited range of functionality.
And it’s not clear that FCPX is faster than PPro at all.Most editors don’t switch NLEs as effortlessly as DPs switch cameras and therefore the usefulness of a niche product that might be faster with limited functionality is much less.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
What’s stopping a DP from using film lenses on the 5D, isn’t that what the PL adapter is for?
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
[Herb Sevush] “My point was the DSLR’s had huge negatives but provided a product I either couldn’t get, or couldn’t afford to get any other way. What product is FCPX providing that you can’t get with PPro?”
Right now, as “v1”, not a ton of things. Hyper fast organization. Hyper fast effects without retooling my existing hardware too much, a weird but decent color corrector. And as I play with it more, really fast editing. Right there, those are the very basics of an NLE, just like a DSLR is the very basics of what you need from a video camera. If I remember correctly, you don’t own FCPX, right?
[Herb Sevush] “Most editors don’t switch NLEs as effortlessly as DPs switch cameras and therefore the usefulness of a niche product that might be faster with limited functionality is much less.”
True, very true. The camera market is way more fragmented than the NLE software market, and this is a relatively new phenomenon. If we as editors had that many choices that “just worked” would we switch around more?
-
[Herb Sevush] “What’s stopping a DP from using film lenses on the 5D, isn’t that what the PL adapter is for?”
Nothing but a mechanically modified chassis that voids your warranty, unless that’s changed. My guess is that is took a long time to get that mount correct, it wasn’t available 2 months after the MkII release, was it?
-
Kinda looks like the MacPro replacement I’ve been describing. As I’ve said, like a MacMini only bigger to accommodate 16 lane PCIe GPU or two and that’s it. At least someone’s been thinking in my direction. My hunch is Apple will do this as it covers a broader range of needs than the MacPro.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Glen, both you and Herb are proving my point. I believe FCPX is in it’s DSLR moment. Timecode, who needs it? Tracks who needs them? FCPX obviously needs a few more firmware updates before the bulk of professionals will finally say, well, it’s a tool that I can use (or not).”
Here’ the problem with that analogy – DSLR video is basically an engineering hack that turned out to be so compelling, it changed an entire industry. DSLR’s are problematic for shooting video because they were never designed to shoot video in the first place.
FCPX on the other hand is designed to be an NLE. Yet Apple has decided to ignore decades of industry standards and even goes as far as trying to redefine the very language of the craft itself. And for all its horsepower, Apple’s new NLE can’t even perform some of the most basic NLE editorial functions. From a design standpoint, this makes FCPX in its current state a design failure.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
“If I remember correctly, you don’t own FCPX, right?”
Because I edit primarily multi-cam, FCPX suits me like the proverbial mammary on a pig (I leave you to decide which is which.)
As far as speed goes I can definitely tell you that for my workflow FCPX is slower than my 20 year old EMC2.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
[David Lawrence] “DSLR’s are problematic for shooting video because they were never designed to shoot video in the first place.”
Yet, they are ubiquitous. It took a while for people to relearn the language of DSLR shooting, and a veritable cottage industry sprung up around it over the last few years to help support it. Again, this did not happen in two months after the release of the MkII. So, in that regard FCPX is more similar than dissimilar. As far as I am concerned, you can edit video in FCPX, can’t you? It’s not like it doesn’t do what it was designed to do.
[David Lawrence] “FCPX on the other hand is designed to be an NLE. Yet Apple has decided to ignore decades of industry standards and even goes as far as trying to redefine the very language of the craft itself.”
Yes, it’s bold isn’t it? It is different, and things are changing. There are no more bins in real life, shooting ratios are skyrocketing, data describing data is becoming a necessity, not a luxury so maybe it’s time to rethink some things? I’m not saying FCPX is right or wrong, but it does make you think. Are tracks really the most efficient way to work?
I’ve said it before, but I truly think Apple has released the full verbiage of FCPX, yet. The language is still being written. Of course, I could be totally wrong. Oh well.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up