-
Old dogs new tricks
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “In fact making a 64bit version of—who’d have guessed it—FCP itself such an undertaking, that a rebuild from the ground up was necessary. In which case I highly commend the maracas it took to seize the moment to in fact completely rethink everything else from the ground up also. Instead of just slapping the old and worn on top of everything new as a (much!) easy(er) way out.”
I agree that Apple made a brave choice in starting over from scratch, but I think it was a uniquely easy choice for Apple to make for a variety of reasons — not the least of which is that there was no real cost to the company if the gambit failed.
[Robin S. Kurz] “My point was merely that if you are effectively playing catch-up with such essential features and tech for literally years, then you don’t, in my book, qualify as “innovative, superior or advanced” by any stretch of the imagination, as I said. Especially in light of what others did in the same timeframe, and not just Apple. There are other things to be said about Avid without having to result to such—again, imho—overdrawn and misleading comparisons. In which case you, if anything, belittle the achievements of others.”
And my point is that “playing catch-up” is a matter of perspective. Since all the NLEs have unique features and express ideas that seem to cross-pollinate, anyone can argue that someone else is playing catch-up to their own favorite NLE.
What have I said that’s overdrawn and misleading?
And I certainly don’t intend to belittle the achievements of others. I was talking about Avid, and the only comparison I drew to other developers was their attitude toward cross-version compatibility. I don’t view this as a zero-sum game and I am capable of thinking highly of multiple NLEs for different reasons.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “I’m sympathetic to the argument that Avid has shown very little innovation lately, but I think it’s hard to argue that Avid is in no way “superior” or “advanced.””
One of the workflows where I think AVID were well ahead of the curve was in stereoscopic. Obviously you can do this in other environments but I can’t help feeling that AVID managed to own that space with their implementation, which in addition to its depth was extremely easy to use.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “One of the workflows where I think AVID were well ahead of the curve was in stereoscopic. “
Perhaps they spent too much time on 3D, which really didn’t work out so well. Would you agree?
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Scott Witthaus] “Perhaps they spent too much time on 3D, which really didn’t work out so well. Would you agree?”
I’m thrilled that 3D appears to have been the damp squib I always hoped it would be.
That doesn’t take away from the fact the AVID provided an incredibly solid and easy-to-use workflow while the fad lasted. And that is surely to their credit. Like them or loathe them, they do actually provide solutions for high-end workflows that some others can’t be bothered to cater for. I think you’d probably agree on that.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
It does not imply the competitors are “feeble minded.”
-
I have to agree with you here. I just don’t get this thread. Usually I find Oliver’s posts insightful. Not this one.
I think there is a bit of market myopia here. Yes, I can see in the feature film world why it doesn’t make that much difference between the products and Avid is a very good feature film editor. I have never questioned that because I don’t know anything about feature film editing.
I’m not in that market though. I do quick turnaround, documentary-style editing. Which is very much similar to news editing. In these markets there are distinct advantages to FCP X. Could I use another editing program? Of course, and I have. Media 100. Vegas. Avid (Xpress Pro actually). FCP legacy. But I find FCP X is just the most efficient for what I do. I’m not sure why Oliver thinks otherwise.
I also think there’s a bit of a straw man here. Who exactly is saying the other programs stink? If anything, I’ve heard a lot more of the opposite. And I don’t go on Premiere or Avid forums to tell them there is absolutely nothing special about their software.
-
[Brett Sherman] ” Who exactly is saying the other programs stink? If anything, I’ve heard a lot more of the opposite.
I think think there is a lot of confirmation bias where one side always things the other side is acting worse. There are insults that call FCP X a toy and there are insults that non-FCP X users avoid FCP X because they fear change and/or are unable to adapt to new situations which will ultimately be their downfall. Bill’s already said twice recently that he worries that the U.S. is “falling behind” the rest of the world when it comes to FCP X adaption which I assume means if you use anything other than FCP X you’re doomed to failure. Not exactly an endorsement for the other NLEs or the people that choose to use them. 😉
And I don’t go on Premiere or Avid forums to tell them there is absolutely nothing special about their software.”This isn’t a FCP X forum. It’s a forum to discuss NLEs. “FCP X or Not” is just a snappier title than “FCP X or FCP 7 or Avid MC or Adobe Premiere or Sony Vegas or Lightworks or Resolve?”
-
Oliver,
But X is not sold nor offered as a compositing program. It’s an NLE. The presumption is that it did the cutting. And the story isn’t that X is doing something that another NLE can’t do. It’s that X is being selected to do the job by yet another high end editor to do another high profile job.
Not because it’s better at compositing, but because it’s an efficient full featured editorial choice. Nothing more than that. If you can show me work at the level of my post coming out of a US ad shop, I’d love to see it. But we’ve now seen exactly that from England and Brazil. And in each case I suspect the editor in question needed at least six months to get to the level where he or she would be comfortable taking on work with it with these types of budgets on the line. Which I believe supports my point that the US is slower to adapt to it than elsewhere. Thats all.
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.
-
[Brett Sherman] “I find FCP X is just the most efficient for what I do. I’m not sure why Oliver thinks otherwise.”
Surely he didn’t say that, though. What he clearly said was: “In the end, it depends on what’s best for your business, your market, your clientele and your own style.” And that’s hardly contentious.
I think though there is a trend here to try and imply (if not state outright) that there is something exceptional about FCP X that sets it apart from the competition.
Oddly this seems to be claimed the most loudly by a few who don’t actually seem to have much, if any, experience of its competitors.
The fact is surely that every NLE has its weaknesses and each one has its strengths and that therefore they are each exceptional in their way.
Surely no-one can really argue that if you need a solid multi-user environment, Media Composer is still well ahead of the field. Similarly if you need integration with the industry standard for motion graphics, it doesn’t get any better than Premiere. And of course, there are advantages to using FCP X that have been extensively rehearsed here over the years.
Surely very few people are still arguing that FCP X doesn’t have a proven place right up there up among the other top NLE offerings. I’m am pretty certain that Oliver didn’t try to suggest that FCP X isn’t a great fit for your workflow, or did I miss that bit?
There’s been a lot of discussion of the Honda spot – and clearly FCP X was ideally suited to that job. On the other hand, if it had been a stereoscopic job (yes, they still exist!), it’s clear that by far the best choice would have been Media Composer.
The suitability of an NLE for one type of job doesn’t necessarily entail its being ideal for every type of job – it seems almost too obvious to state this.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Bill Davis] “But X is not sold nor offered as a compositing program. It’s an NLE. The presumption is that it did the cutting. And the story isn’t that X is doing something that another NLE can’t do. It’s that X is being selected to do the job by yet another high end editor to do another high profile job.”
I think the important factor is workflow. Cutting together a spot by building the base for the effects could be done with any NLE by a talented editor. That’s hardly the question, nor what makes the use of X interesting. The Honda spot is not interesting because X was used, but rather the workflow of cutting two mirrored spots simultaneously and how specific functions in X made that process easier.
[Bill Davis] ” If you can show me work at the level of my post coming out of a US ad shop, I’d love to see it.”
What? I don’t have anything to point to right at this moment, but you are saying that no US spot features this level of effects and compositing? Seems pretty unlikely. OTOH, what about this oldie, but goodie?
[Bill Davis] “Which I believe supports my point that the US is slower to adapt to it than elsewhere.”
I just don’t see how you come to that conclusion. Maybe others are more adventurous. Maybe the factors are completely different. Or maybe the US is? So what?
In the end, I could care less who uses or doesn’t use a given NLE. If there’s a choice, then I’d like to know why they made that choice. What about the tool aided the workflow. Honda R and FCP X clearly identify that, as does Fincher’s group using PProCC for “Gone Girl”. Different circumstances, but workflow drove the decision. Knowing the context adds to the learning.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.comSome contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Vimeo framework” 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.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up