Might Be An Interesting Read

[Chris Harlan]

[Bill Davis] ” robust timecode support”

You are joking, right?

[Bill Davis]

But “paid for their work” is kinda fluid, isn’t it?

Every small business in America seems to be in a rush to put their message out in video form. So since the lawnmower repair guy down the street wants to put out videos designed to support a money making business, the wife drawing a paycheck from that business who makes their web videos is arguably being “paid” to do so.

So she’s a video pro? I doubt that’s what’s being alleged here. So what is? What’s the threshold that separates the amateur from the pro?

It’s a slippery slope. One person’s amateur, after all, is another persons pro.

I’m not arguing, by the way, for or against that classification for anyone. Just trying to examine whether the definition of a PRO might actually sometimes need to be narrower and sometimes broader than our individual prejudicial definitions presume.

The point is that there might not actually be just ONE definition of a “professional editor”, but many.

“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

[Bill Davis]

[David Roth Weiss] “[David Roth Weiss] Forgetting about proper color, which is highly subjective, how about fields-related issues, which involve no subjectivity?

How exactly can you properly QC the output of FCPX without being able to see mismatched fields or reversed field order, both of which require proper video monitoring?

Evidently, you failed to listen even after saying you’d “be happy to listen.”
“

First, David, I can’t find time to visit here enough to see everything.

If I’d responded to that at the time here’s what I should have said…

Proper color is another slippery slope. I know too many art directors who regularly decide to replace skys, tint frames, and plenty of shooters who use of “color tricks” like warm cards that technically “screw up” color with intent. I could argue that “proper color” was more critical in the days when broadcast was the DOMINANT game – and a mis-set proc amp anywhere in the chain could mess up that INTENT. In the NLE era, once you get the values correct at ANY point in the chain, you can expect them to remain pretty constant since they’re digital values that will largely be maintained by data error checking routines.

Same with fields issues. Fields are an NTSC broadcast requirement. If your work isn’t gong to be broadcast, fields are functionally irrelevant. Again you’re shoehorning video into YOUR definition of PRO – one that might not be shared by the majority of the others who are playing the game today.

So I am listening. You might not be if you continue to argue that the ONLY video worth value is that which is shoehorned into a classic broadcast environment.

Haven’t you even NOTICED that a huge amount of video is being produced today in 23.97 PROGRESSIVE formats – anathema for the 29.97 broadcast world since it requires the hassle of a 3:2 pulldown for use..

Good luck checking that progressive stuff for “field order.”

“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

[Bill Davis]

HUD display of frame accurate timecode. Sub frame accuracy baked in for audio handling. Timecode math including search and seek, trim and increment available in the MIDDLE of the editing interface.

Yeah, I’d call that “robust timecode support” since none of those elements are of much interest for someone who’s just slapping together a “trip to the beach” video.

What’s YOUR take on how FCP handles Timecode?

I guess someone looking to genlock to a BetaCam deck might find the lack of a pathway that enables an analog TC signal via BNC port a problem. But at some point you just have to let the past go.

Or would you like to take the FCP-X engineering team to task for failure to support RS-232, 422 as well?

“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

[David Roth weiss]

Of course Bill, we all know that it’s a given there are no fields to deal with when cutting progressive material. Unfortunately, that’s totally unresponsive to my post(s). And, as I’m sure you know, most video in this country is still interlaced, because the majority of NTSC TV transmission still requires it. One need only look at the the FCP Forum to see that the vast majority of questions l deal with mixed formats and the fields-related issues arising therefrom.

So, though you claim you don’t get to read everything here, you’ve certainly managed to quickly get on their case whenever anyone questions the professional capabilities of FCPX. And, you’ve been so absolutely unwaveringly vehement, and so very certain in your arguments to the contrary. However, when I’ve given you that “mission critical” thing you asked for, pointing out precisely what FCPX can’t do, you can’t even acknowledge the point, because you know very well it perfectly contradicts your point. That’s so hollow.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.com

Don’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/1

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™

Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.

[Walter Soyka]

[Bill Davis] “In what way did they “lose sight” of pro users? Are you trying to argue that a sub-frame accuracy in edits, robust timecode support, a monster database under the hood and stuff like Roles are built for folks doing birthday party videos and the occasional low budget wedding?”

In the way FCPX lacks support for some complex workflows that FCP7 had — most especially in high end film and broadcast, where there are no working amateurs by definition?

I get that the question of defining pro is very complicated, and a lot of the “pro” talk here comes back to a Justice Stewart-style sense of “I know it when I see it.”

With that said, haven’t we all agreed by now that FCPX may be appropriate for some “pro” workflows, but not for all?

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

[Chris Harlan]

Bill, what you describe as robust wouldn’t even have been considered so back in 1998. “Robust” would be the ability to re-write or reassign TC for any source material, monitor and match timecode across tracks or synced items, monitor and match timecode at different frame rates. I should be able to, using time code, replace a temp source with a master with matching code in any given timeline. I should be able to monitor in and outs of any given clip or a whole group of clips at the same time. I should have sync markers that demonstrate the number of frames paired or locked items are out of sync, and in what direction. I should have indicators that show sync or lack-there-of across all layers/tracks/or what-you-will. I should be able to generate an EDL, and of course, I should be able to read one and attach material to it. That’s robust.

I agree with you that FCP X has more timecode support that a hobbyist might need, but to call it robust is absurd.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Walter Soyka] I get that the question of defining pro is very complicated, and a lot of the “pro” talk here comes back to a Justice Stewart-style sense of “I know it when I see it.”

I agree that the “pro” argument is both misleading and well-tread here in the forums.

On the other hand, I think that Apple has branded their product as “pro” and it’s up to them to define what they mean and justify themselves.

Franz.

[Bill Davis]

[Chris Harlan] “Bill, what you describe as robust wouldn’t even have been considered so back in 1998. “Robust” would be the ability to re-write or reassign TC for any source material, monitor and match timecode across tracks or synced items, monitor and match timecode at different frame rates. I should be able to, using time code, replace a temp source with a master with matching code in any given timeline. I should be able to monitor in and outs of any given clip or a whole group of clips at the same time. I should have sync markers that demonstrate the number of frames paired or locked items are out of sync, and in what direction. I should have indicators that show sync or lack-there-of across all layers/tracks/or what-you-will. I should be able to generate an EDL, and of course, I should be able to read one and attach material to it. That’s robust.

I agree with you that FCP X has more timecode support that a hobbyist might need, but to call it robust is absurd.”

Chris,

Thank you for the details. I have absolutely no problem with a single thing you listed in your first paragraph above. Those make a perfectly rational list of requirements for someone doing the specific work you do.

It’s no more surprising to me than a watch repair person needing a screwdriver with an almost microscopically small tip. Tools should be available to fit the task at hand.

I will note that in the larger world, very, VERY few toolboxes on the planet include a screwdriver that fine. Because the need is so specialized.

The modern NLE is DECREASINGLY a specialists tool. Apple understood that first. They’ve revised their flagship product away from a “specialists” orientation – and toward, IMO, an empowerment tool for a wider audience that rarely needs watchmaking tools, and seems to be pretty accepting of the re-invention of traditional ones.

Perhaps connecting the “meta-data” stuff in X is a bit like powered compressors showing up on construction job sites where hand tools once ruled?

We’ll see.

“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

[Chris Harlan]

[Bill Davis] “It’s no more surprising to me than a watch repair person needing a screwdriver with an almost microscopically small tip. Tools should be available to fit the task at hand.

I will note that in the larger world, very, VERY few toolboxes on the planet include a screwdriver that fine. Because the need is so specialized. “

Right. And that’s why none of those smaller little tool boxes with their two screwdrivers would be said to contain a “robust” collection of screwdrivers.

[Bill Davis] “The modern NLE is DECREASINGLY a specialists tool. Apple understood that first. “

What robust hokum. ALL modern NLEs have more specialization tools than ever before, EXCEPT Apple. No one else has shown any inclination to follow.