-
New Walter Murch FCPX interview (from macvideo)
-
[Jamie Franklin] “Does that include a multi-track?”
It could. Instead of tracks, you have Roles, and a Role can get assigned to a channel, kind of like they do now on Multi Channel audio QT Exports from FCPX.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Followed by “There’s the position tool”. “
Followed by a section on how we need to adjust to a new way of working, which somewhat contradicted his original point about how he liked working the way he was used to. I thought his addition about the Position tool was more to show he understood that positioning could be done in the magnetic paradigm than to suggest it was the better way to work.
But yes, using selective quotation myself was probably a bad rhetorical strategy to point out that you were selectively quoting. Let’s call that one a draw.
[Jeremy Garchow] “He really did use the words optimistic, though. I promise. More than once.”
Yes, he said he was optimistic, but given the rest of his interview, I’d have to describe it as cautiously so. I got an almost clinical and detached sense from him on FCPX, not committing to it in the short term and neither acclaiming nor condemning FCPX in the long term. That seems just plain reasonable, but not particularly newsworthy. What would the headline be? “Murch won’t use FCPX now, but might someday?”
He also didn’t sound like he had a lot of hands-on time with FCPX yet. And why would he? He has specific needs that FCPX couldn’t fill at launch. (I suspect that 10.0.1 update addressed some, though not all, of his concerns.)
[Jeremy Garchow] “I think a balanced approach does matter, yes. If he wouldn’t have been so thoughtful, the interview would have had a completely different tone and fired around the internet, kind of like his first presentation in which he was grossly misquoted. To me, state of mind does matter, but maybe it doesn’t to other people.”
Optimism and balance are not the same.
I have tried to give credit where it is due with FCPX, because there really are some things it gets totally right — just as you have conceded points where it doesn’t quite measure up. That’s balance.
I’d like FCPX to improve quickly to the point where it’s a viable option for me, but I’m not seeing much from Apple that suggests they are interested in the same things I am. You seem to think they will more likely than not get FCPX where you need it to be in a short timeframe. That’s optimism.
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 -
[Walter Soyka] “What would the headline be? “Murch won’t use FCPX now, but might someday?””
Why not?
[Walter Soyka] “You seem to think they will more likely than not get FCPX where you need it to be in a short timeframe. That’s optimism.”
Yeah, I guess I have both balance and optimism. I guess I see things that can be changes, or a foundation that will support important workflow choices. It certainly can’t do everything now, but I don’t have to use it every day quite yet.
-
David,
Look back over all you’ve posted here. Unlike Mr. Murch, who divided his time and words nearly equally demonstrating not just what he felt was unfinished or lacking, but what he felt was a solid indication of the FCP-X potential relevance to a new future – most of what you, and others in your “spin class” have proferred, has been relentlessly targeted to a single, monolithic view. That of the disappointed professional who could ONLY see what FCP-X was not, and had to be brought, kicking and screaming, to acknowledge what it might represent for the future.
That is my interpretation of what I’ve seen here the past 4 months of daily reading. Perhaps you never saw your contributions that way – exactly in the same way I never saw mine as relentlessly “pollyanna-ish” (something I’ve been accused of time and time again here) but that makes sense since anyone with a point of view is prone to bristle when they say the world is BLUE and someone steps up relentlessly to attack that view with “NOT BLUE – GREEN!!!) over and over and over again.
I’ve come to understand that this “disconnect” makes the most sense when you take into consideration that you and others here could well be stuck behind YELLOW LENSES of a particular professional orientation that make them see ALL blue as green. (I also freely acknowledge that I may have been wearing my own sunglasses that may be too dark to see the entire landscape clearly.) But so what?
It simply makes each of us flawed in our perceptions and that the reality that wins will be decided by the larger group of those who can see more clearly than either of us.
Mr. Murch, unlike you and others here – started out acknowledging that knowing whether or not you have colored lenses in place as you judge a picture is pretty smart.
It’s what I saw in this clip from him – and have yet to see from you and select others in the discussion here.
That clear enough for you?
“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
-
And if he’s the most accurate prognosticator, then the real “take away” is that he seems to acknowledge that it matters VERY little what 1500 “professional movie editors” think, as he defines the group with the biggest problems with the state of FCP-X.
I’d bet EVERY SINGLE one of them has had the opportunity to read, discuss and even USE FCP-X (provided they have the time to fiddle) and if EVERY SINGLE ONE of them ditches it, it won’t make a discernible blip in the fortunes of AVID or Premier, OR Apple.
That revenue stream is simply gnat-like in a world of elephants.
History is LITTERED with the carcases of high-end professional toolsets that were ideal for the highest level users but because they didn’t attract a broad enough base, they faltered and died under their own weight.
There’s no way to predict if or when Adobe or AVID might go the way of, say, Silicon Graphics – (and I pray none of them EVER do – because I truly believe that competition drives the whole industry forward) but it’s likely going to be touch and go.
The biggest threat to the old “big iron running big software” model is probably the “touchscreenification” of Windows 8 right now. If they do to their development pipeline what Apple did to theirs – re-tool and re-focus on personal devices over “big iron” — then that’s going to put MASSIVE pressure on software and hardware development that doesn’t view massive, fast computers chock full of slip in cards and big assed monitors as the path to profits over the next 3-5 years.
Who would be left to do the OS development that would support that traditional work mode? Anyone?
Will Adobe or AVID need to morph (again for AVID) to being combo hardware/software vendors just to keep boxes around that run their stuff “properly?”
I keep reading about supply chain issues where other hardware vendors are pissed because Apple keeps buying out the total delivery capacity of everything from NAND chips to the drilling machines capable of putting the micro holes in the aluminum that let’s the “camera on” light shine through the skin of the MacBook Pros.
It’s a world where everyday people keep saying “I personally don’t need something with a big massive power supply.” Which means that the company that manufacturers those has to worry about survival in a shrinking market.
Scary, a little.
“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
-
The only thing i got out of this interview is that Rick Young shouldn’t be allowed to shoot an interview. We’ve got this whole big room to work with so lets put the subject flat up against a wall and lets put his dark shirt on a dark couch so it looks like his disembodied head is floating in space and then we’ll act like we never heard of a fill light. In a way this was the perfect comment on the software made for the Utube generation. Nothing like attention to craft.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
When’s Part 2 coming out . . . ?
Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia -
[Bill Davis] “That is my interpretation of what I’ve seen here the past 4 months of daily reading.”
Yes, I know what your interpretation is Bill, but the important thing here is just how closely your interpretation and your recollection are to the reality of what I’ve actually written. I’ve asked you several times to go back into the Cow archives to retrieve the mountain of stuff from the last four months that you consistently try to attribute to me, but you haven’t delivered, because most of it exists entirely in your mind.
The fact is Bill, you’ve consistently confused what I earlier wrote about you, constantly trying to chase fellow Cows off this forum who disagreed with you, with what I’ve actually written about FCPX. They are two entirely different subjects, which you are unable to separate.
My message about FCPX has actually been consistently very close to Mr. Murch’s point of view. I have consistently stated that X does not work for me and those I work with, because of the “ecosystem” I work in, here in Hollywood. And, I have also said, just like Mr. Murch, that “we’ll just have to wait to see” if Apple can ever make it work. Are either of those statements inconsistent with Walter Murch’s statements? They sure sound the same to me.
In any case, all of my posts are archived on the Cow, and they are open for all to see. I’ve also produced a three part audio podcast on the subject of FXPX with my guest David Lawrence, which you might also want to check. So please, I welcome you to research the record; rather than continuing to project all of your misplaced feelings and emotions onto me, just show us what you’ve got. This is after all a business of show.
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.comDon’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/1POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.
-
Yes people interpret things as they want.
All the words against Mr Murch because he “actually had never used FCPX” becomes now smiles just because he sounds more “diplomatic”.
The example or the gas/electricity doesn’t work. Then was about to change something that worked for something that worked better. Now is about changing something that works for something that might work (Is like if they cut your gas and they put a solar panel that so far can heat your water just enough to wash your face, but no cafe, no lights and not TV at home).I notice is that Mr Murch is a genius of film editing, but hi is very short on technical matters. The only thing he praise a couple of times is the new “64bits” architecture. Not sure if he understand how that will help him on his editing or how that will make a difference with FCP.
Sounded like any other politician close to the polls.
rafael -
[Rafael Amador] I notice is that Mr Murch is a genius of film editing, but hi is very short on technical matters. The only thing he praise a couple of times is the new “64bits” architecture. Not sure if he understand how that will help him on his editing or how that will make a difference with FCP.
Murch is quite the Apple fanboy actually, and it’s amazing how much esteem he held for the company even after his experiences in dealing with them on Cold Mountain. I was literally astounded at how the company dealt with Murch and his team on that film and yet Murch still maintained quite the enthusiasm for them. I would say that even now a lot of that remains.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up