-
Mark Sanger (Oscar Winner for Editing – Gravity) Avid vs FCPX
-
And to be fair, OSX allows a one click upload to Vimeo right from the finder. You don’t specifically need FCPX for this.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “OSX allows a one click upload to Vimeo right from the finder”
And now I have searched the Vimeo tools to find this thing, but cannot find it. Where/how does this happen? Thanks!
-
[Richard Herd] “And now I have searched the Vimeo tools to find this thing, but cannot find it. Where/how does this happen? Thanks!
“Right click your video file in the finder- Share- Vimeo
Not sure if this is Yosemite only
-
It’s Mavericks too. THank you!
-
[Bill Davis] “I believe it has, but it’s in its infancy.
Not long ago, there was no independent distribution marketplace tied to an e-commerce back end that a small producer could hook up to and self-distribute niche content and make a profit. “
Bill,
First off I want to say I very much share your concern over the consolidation of media ownership to just a handful of giant companies. I think in the mid-80’s there were over a hundred major media companies and now, like you said, there are just 6.
I wish I shared your optimism as the Internet as a great equalizer though. I’ve worked on many projects that would not have existed prior to the Internet so I’ve certainly benefitted from the new and unique opportunities it offers, but I’ve also seen the landscape change in ways that makes me think we are headed from a land of old gatekeepers to a land of new gatekeepers (and the old gatekeepers are going to move over once the money makes it worthwhile)
Even ‘for artists, by artists’ digital/YouTube studios like Maker Studios and Machinima (two top YT content creators) have horrible business practices of many of these ‘new media’ companies are many times the exact same as the ‘old media’ companies that people like to rage against. The business is still a business even if it’s on a smaller small screen. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. 😉
30 years ago the barrier of entry was largely one of cost (everything from cameras to editing equipment was specialized and expensive) but if you got something made odds are you could find a buyer/distributor. These days it’s insanely cheaper to create content, which means everyone and their brother is doing it, so the hard part is standing out in a sea of similar faces. Self distribution to a global audience is easy peasy but getting noticed and monetizing your content is harder than ever. Marketing is still the game changer. Even Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, after years of feuding with his old label and going the self distribution route for a few years, partnered with a major record label for his latest album because he wanted/needed their marketing muscle. And this is a guy with an existing fan base of 100’s of millions of people all over the world.
With all that being said, there’s still no reason *not* to swing for the fences and do things that people say won’t work. I mean, I moved out to Los Angeles looking to succeed even though I knew odds are I’m going to fail. It wouldn’t be fun if it was easy, right? 😉
-
[Andrew Kimery] “These days it’s insanely cheaper to create content, which means everyone and their brother is doing it, so the hard part is standing out in a sea of similar faces. Self distribution to a global audience is easy peasy but getting noticed and monetizing your content is harder than ever.”
That’s the heart of it right there. To be able to see and be seen you need a tower. Ancient idea. My favorite extrapolation of it is in the Confucianist interpretations of the I Ching. Its also beautifully detailed in Kurosawa’s High and Low.
Media conglomerates provide a tower. Louie CK can sell his video online, but only because so many people have seen him on the tower.
-
Walter,
It’s the sum of the parts that X incorporated from day one.
Lets start with all the “automated on import” functions such as basic color correction, basic audio correction, and even basic transcoding. These are not tools designed for the broadcast market, they’re designed for users who might reasonably be targeting their work of the web – and who never need to be concerned about adhering to broadcast or movie standards.
Next, look at where X STARTED with regards to format agnosticism. It incorporated all the codecs that Apple has IP rights to – which included H264 and a pathway to H265 from day one. I’ve got to think that the Apple rejection of FLASH in favor of HTML 5 was another clear sign that they always felt they had to guarantee computational efficiency and therefore were keeping their eye on web delivery. FLASH was a processor hog. And when you’re on a laptop deploying to the web – that’s a bad idea.
Next, it’s not JUST share with one-click formatting. IT’s share with integrated web search tagging embedded. That’s a part of the “preserve the metadata” functions that X was purpose-built around.
Once again, it’s not that other developers, other computer companies, or other distributors didn’t have anything like these tools. It’s looking at the DESIGN goals of X and coming to the conclusion that the initial goals of X was NOT to be super compatible with the way video was created and distributed in the past – but rather look downstream how it was likely to be created and distributed in the future.
The single window initial structure – laptop and (arguably) eventual mobile-device friendly. The give the same weight to import of Cineform (GoPro) as you do to RedCine codecs. And don’t expect that EVERY user coming to X would have a 10 year background in video engineering. Give them the simplest possible tools necessary to get the job done (color board rather than 3way – and one click 60z hum removal) and layer the complex and precisely targeted tools underneath those for the editors who wish to dive deep.
Basically, Apple was the first and the largest player to find value in making a break with the past. That’s precisely what’s angered the class of users who’s lively hood depends so much on BEING compatible with traditional workflows.
That’s perhaps half a dozen exemplars. I could come up with more if you like.
Like the $299 price tag? Enough to be hugely profitable for a wide audience, nowhere near enough to be more than a blip if the market is just folks that used to order $100,000+ cameras by the dozen.
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] “Basically, Apple was the first and the largest player to find value in making a break with the past. That’s precisely what’s angered the class of users who’s lively hood depends so much on BEING compatible with traditional workflows.”
I think all of your points are pretty spot on. Though I think it’s work mentioning that the only users who were angered were Apple’s own customers who had relied on FCP “legacy”.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Though I think it’s work mentioning that the only users who were angered were Apple’s own customers who had relied on FCP “legacy”.”
Completely, Oliver.
But those also were a general majority of the professional editing industry – both top, middle and bottom.
And they’d achieved that penetration in the industry via a better understanding what the broader class of “editors” actually needed. Particularly those who didn’t have multi-seat shops and dozens of collaborative editors whose needs were paramount. They slowly developed that over years. Despite pretty constant derision and disbelief.
Seems to me they may be doing precisely the same thing today.
But time will tell.
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] “And they’d achieved that penetration in the industry via a better understanding what the broader class of “editors” actually needed. “
I think that’s a questionable assumption. They achieved it because of cost, the lack of dependence on proprietary hardware and because AJA, Bluefish, Pinnacle and others first stepped up to the plate for lower cost and more generic hardware substitutes. That filled the gap and made FCP more than a hobbyist’s DV editing application.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up