-
Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
-
Bill can you please stop insulting and patronising those of us who are happy with editing conventions that have been around for at least the past 30 years.
[Bill Davis] “Apple tossed out a lot of very tired thinking that benefited only those with workflows designed around workflows less and less relevant to modern editing”
[Bill Davis] “I know there are still people who MUST work like they’ve always worked. And bless them there are plenty of great approaches for those how want to do that. Premier and AVID to name two.”
[Bill Davis] “That you’re stuck a year later seeing only what the death of Legacy took away – and not understanding anything much about what Apples decision might represent for all editors in the rapidly approaching future – is a sign that you may be stuck in a rut of your own design.”
These sort of statements, besides not being uncommon in your plethora of punitive pejorative posts, make it sound like we who are content to bypass Final Cut X have had some sort of frontal lobotomy and need to be pitied because we just cannot see the future of editing.
You can break out any analogy you like, but a lot, a lot, of really smart people think that X just doesn’t cut it as a professional editing tool. Now these people are not “naysayers” or whiny neophytes or stuck-in-the-mud-luddites, they are highly skilled, perceptive, forward thinking people who edit for a living.
You love it, that’s great. But I don’t keep reading posts from other people intimating that you, and whoever else is using X, are: Apple fanboys; don’t really know what editing’s all about; aren’t really professionals and just love new toys.
However I do keep reading posts from you suggesting, or at least intimating, what I’ve said above.
[Bill Davis] “”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”
Indeed!
Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia -
[Greg Andonian] “”Some of the Apple product managers wanted to charge a premium for Final Cut Studio with Color vs. Final Cut Studio without Color. Names such as Final Cut Studio Platinum or Final Cut Studio Extended Edition were bandied about”
I wonder if this is how the “Final Cut Extreme” rumors got started…
“I don’t think so. I personally never had one, but I remember a lot of talk back in 2006-7 about Apple reps having conversations with the majors about such a tool from folks I worked with.
-
Here you go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO1yYBm5wSo
Just a reminder to us all that the answer depends very much on where we choose to look from.
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
Now that’s what I call a 3D transition!
-
On the issue of Jobs choosing to bundle Color and not have a differentiated product there are two ways of seeing this. Firstly it made it simple that there was just one affordable version for all. Secondly for many the Studio bundle was complicated to drive and to round trip within.
So Jobs was both right and wrong. An alternative may have been a simplified edit package without Color and another product which was a finishing tool that had Color properly integrated and had better titling & compositing tools built in ala Smoke.
The two things that constantly come up with FCS3 is that for editors it was complicated and for finishing people like me that it was poorly integrated. So the irony is that choosing simplicity of packaging and pricing meant that a proper finishing tool which people would have paid extra for couldn’t be developed and complications for editors who didn’t need that amenity couldn’t be simplified.
-
[Michael Gissing] “The two things that constantly come up with FCS3 is that for editors it was complicated and for finishing people like me that it was poorly integrated. So the irony is that choosing simplicity of packaging and pricing meant that a proper finishing tool which people would have paid extra for couldn’t be developed and complications for editors who didn’t need that amenity couldn’t be simplified.”
I dunno. It’s not like just the inclusion of Color in the box made FCP, or any of the other apps more complicated to use. And while the round trip between FCP and Color was certainly fragile (especially Color 1.0.x) it was obviously good enough to help create a ‘desktop-colorist’ movement that led to Resolve and pretty nifty Baselight plugin being offered at price mere mortals could afford.
I think Jobs decision to keep the packages together stays in line w/the simplicity of having everything in one box. The Final Cut Suite wasn’t always a suite so I’m not surprised Jobs wanted to keep the product line streamlined. Of course now FCPX, Motion and Compressor are all separate apps so WTF do I know…
Even if he did decided to offer Color as a separate item I doubt any more effort would’ve been put into it. Given Apple’s history w/Shake, not much being done with Final Cut Server, DVD SP remaining at version 4 since ’05 and Color only going from 1.0 to 1.5 during its Apple lifespan they’ve shown time and time again that they’ll make what the want to make and the customer can take it or leave it.
-Andrew
2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5) -
[Alex Hawkins] “Bill can you please stop insulting and patronising those of us who are happy with editing conventions that have been around for at least the past 30 years. “
I’m sorry you see this as patronizing. It’s honestly not my intention to be so. It IS my intention to articulate my difference of opinion on why X has been designed the way it is. And why that re-design can work really, really well for editors with practices like mine.
There are plenty of editors here who represent your view. And just a couple who represent my view. So why are you so concerned at a voice like mine being represented? If I’m correct and some of the thinking behind X is forward thinking and useful – then people here can perhaps consider the alternative positions I propose? What’s the problem with that? Traditional tools are well represented in editing. Why are you guys so bristly when someone wants to argue for the value of a different approach?
I get that editing as an industry is under a lot of stress and there are big changes afoot. But don’t that argue for listening MORE closely to alternatives, even if they are currently inadequate to the way you work today?
I actually write pretty regularly here in acceptance of other peoples work flows. Noting over and over that I have no issue with those who use Avid, Adobe, and Vegas in pursuit of perfectly reasonable editing requirements that make those a better choice than X for many situations.
[Alex Hawkins]
You love it, that’s great. But I don’t keep reading posts from other people intimating that you, and whoever else is using X, are: Apple fanboys; don’t really know what editing’s all about; aren’t really professionals and just love new toys.
“Uh, then perhaps you aren’t reading the same threads I am. The term “fanboy” has been applied to FCP-proponents here in about the same percentage that the term “metalhead’ has been applied to fans of the band Judas Priest.
[Alex Hawkins]
However I do keep reading posts from you suggesting, or at least intimating, what I’ve said above.”Okay. Point taken. I”ve probably been too vociferous lately.
I clearly don’t have the writing chops to articulate my points without causing reactive pain in those who hold similar views to yours.
Sorry about that. My failure. I don’t know how to suppress my ire about what some here write that seems dismissive of X as a tool and an entire approach to editing without resorting to the same (or worse” dismissiveness in response.
Mea Culpa.
But I honestly don’t naturally try to “trash” others. If you go back and look at where I get bristly – I suspect you’ll nearly always find it to be in response to someone who’s written something I feel is wildly off base about either the software’s operation, design, philosophy or capabilities.
I know a good deal about it’s operation. Not more than others here – and certainly not with any definitive understanding. But I do use it consistently for paid work for pretty well known national level clients – and it works for me. So when people say it’s crap, I get a bit riled. I’ll try to keep and eye on that.
I’m happy to entertain any debate about X’s actual approaches and functions. I just don’t really cotton too the trashing and the wholesale misrepresentation of what it does or how it works.
Simple as that.
“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
-
I have had so many editors say – ‘oh that’s how Color works’ – when I grade for them. For many it was software that they didn’t need and wondered why they were paying for it, even though I used to argue that it was just a freebie that some of us found useful.
But by having one package that had to meet a simple cost point model it meant Apple were never going to spend time improving integration. If they had embraced a more expensive version and used the price difference to develop the integration properly it would have meant they could have dropped Color from a more basic edit package and perhaps made a cheaper version a la FCPX.
So now I am looking a Smoke being at the sort of price with integration that many of us were hoping for when the FCP Extreme rumours were about. And FCPX at the editors price. So my reasoning is that Steve Jobs obsession with simplicity actually made things complicated. Every time I have to eject a DVD Rom from my MacPro I curse Jobs and his obsession.
Shake shows the same mentality and the lack of commitment to certain areas of the industry. Such simplicity may be good for marketing but it isn’t in the interest of users who actually need something sophisticated and inherently more complex than Apple’s bread & butter consumers.
-
[Bill Davis] “There are plenty of editors here who represent your view. And just a couple who represent my view. So why are you so concerned at a voice like mine being represented?”
Do you really think you’re that outnumbered? I’d place it at almost a 50/50 split.
[Bill Davis] “I get that editing as an industry is under a lot of stress and there are big changes afoot. But don’t that argue for listening MORE closely to alternatives, even if they are currently inadequate to the way you work today?”
Cool. Just play the ball and not the man.
[Bill Davis] “Uh, then perhaps you aren’t reading the same threads I am. The term “fanboy” has been applied to FCP-proponents here in about the same percentage that the term “metalhead’ has been applied to fans of the band Judas Priest”
Mmmm just as long as I am not referred to one because I listen to Jethro Tull.
[Bill Davis] “I’m sorry you see this as patronizing. It’s honestly not my intention to be so. It IS my intention to articulate my difference of opinion on why X has been designed the way it is. And why that re-design can work really, really well for editors with practices like mine”
[Bill Davis] “Okay. Point taken. I”ve probably been too vociferous lately.
I clearly don’t have the writing chops to articulate my points without causing reactive pain in those who hold similar views to yours.
Sorry about that. My failure. I don’t know how to suppress my ire about what some here write that seems dismissive of X as a tool and an entire approach to editing without resorting to the same (or worse” dismissiveness in response.
Mea Culpa.
But I honestly don’t naturally try to “trash” others. If you go back and look at where I get bristly – I suspect you’ll nearly always find it to be in response to someone who’s written something I feel is wildly off base about either the software’s operation, design, philosophy or capabilities”
Fair do’s to you. No probs at all.
Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia -
[Jules bowman] “You can patronise us all you want about wearing flares”
Stop spinning.
I’m “patronizing” nobody with a thick enough skin to be called an adult.
I’m espousing a point of view. I give reasons for my thinking here all the time. You’re free to disagree all you like. But you’re not free to determine my tone when you can’t seem to “hear” it accurately.
If I was the lone voice then you may have a point but for a year you’ve been doing so and for a year many have asked you to stop it and for a year you haven’t even the self awareness to realise you are doing it it seems? Why do you think I troll your posts? You think I have nothing to do in my life? Or maybe it is because you have consistently been an arrogant patronising condascending pompous man with your perceptions of and comments about FC10 and those that have made disparaging remarks about it? You still bang on about those left behind by the advancement often editing paradigm and how those are struggling with this evolution, among many other comments. Do you not see the insult and pompousness of that comment alone? If you don’t Bill, then I would move on from forum posting and perhaps embark in some self awareness programme.
At no point have you called us adults bill. You have called us many other things though mate. And the irony of you starting the post with stop spinning will not be lost on the majority.
Stop it Bill, you are making a fool of yourself even if you are incapable of seeing it, and no, I will not be the only person to think this.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up