-
Old dogs new tricks
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “[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.”Just to reiterate, I started by saying that I didn’t believe one single NLE was any more innovative than the other. They all have strong innovation that each company can point to. For each editor it comes down to what they like and what fits their style.
For the record, I’ve cut nearly everything I’ve worked on (where I had the choice) with X, since right after it was released. There’s a lot I like about it, however, I still find myself needing to jump to other NLEs from time to time because X falls short for some reason or another. Or I can get 80% of the way there, but need that extra 20% from another NLE. Not everyone has those needs and I get that. But I also see that my use of X is the exception.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Walter Soyka] “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.”
I find that to be a meretricious cop-out and gross devaluation of any and every vision, effort and/or intention they, the FCP dev team, had or have with FCP X if you ask me. Since if the whole thing somehow didn’t matter either way, then why DID they code the by far most elaborate app they ever have to date? Why not go the “easy route” as I described? Why even have FCP at all? Your notion makes no sense whatsoever to me in light of the facts. And no, not just to sell hardware, even though that will have played into it, sure. Duh, they’re a profit oriented business.
If you knew anyone from the FCP team, as I do, then you’d know very quickly how passionate and serious they are about making the best possible product. To suggest that it was just “for fun” or that it didn’t matter to anyone whether it succeeded or failed, just because they could “afford” it, is just plain ludicrous and I’m sure pretty darn insulting to them. If you believe that, then you would appear not to have any idea how Apple actually works, specifically the FCP team.
Never mind that we’re talking about the most valuable company on the planet. I guess, by that logic, something you become when you have some sort of willy-nilly business practice, where things are decided because, hey, screw it, who cares if we blow a few hundred million and make for horrible PR?
Oh right. It’s just all iPhones and luck. I forget. 😀
[Walter Soyka] “And my point is that “playing catch-up” is a matter of perspective.”
Sorry, but not when it comes to industry and technological basics and standards for this industry, which both 4K and 64bit are. I was never referring to some individual *feature*.
[Walter Soyka] “What have I said that’s overdrawn and misleading?”
I wasn’t referring to you. I was referring to the initial notion that Avid somehow qualifies for the three aforementioned traits in comparison to a slew of others. In general terms and in reference to the overall gist of the thread (to the point where you joined). I guess I should have used the term “one” instead of “you”. But I thought it was obvious I was speaking in general, not to you specifically. My bad.
[Walter Soyka] “I was talking about Avid”
Yes, and again, as I understood it, equating what they have achieved (most of all WHEN they achieved it) with the achievements of others. As others before you, whom I was referring to. Which again I found to be a extremely short-sighted take on the matter. Since if we had been having this conversation just a mere six months to a year ago there would have been very little to argue in favor of Avid in respect to the aforementioned points.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Oliver Peters] “but you are saying that no US spot features this level of effects and compositing? “
Once again, a complete misinterpretation i.e. misrepresentation of what was meant or said.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Robin S. Kurz] “Once again, a complete misinterpretation i.e. misrepresentation of what was meant or said.”
Then explain it to me, since you didn’t say it.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “damp squib”
I have no clue what this is! 🙂
[Simon Ubsdell] “That doesn’t take away from the fact the AVID provided an incredibly solid and easy-to-use workflow while the fad lasted.”
If Avid had listened to it’s users, it would have known not to chase this fad. A lot of valuable time and resources went after this “damp squib” (I think!) that Avid should not have wasted. What other requested features were put on the back-burner because of the 3D investment?
[Simon Ubsdell] ” 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.”
Yes, I do agree and it re-enforces some ideas that Avid is becoming a niche product for broadcast and film. And yes, that is a niche when looked at the entire landscape. And some of us will never need to go to that niche, or a niche (3D) of that niche. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good and highly visible niche, but a niche all the same.
sw
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Oliver Peters] “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?”
Yeah, that is kind of an odd conclusion…
Bill… not trying to pile on here, but I almost don’t know what to say. Have you really not heard of Imaginary Forces, Digital Domain or Method Studios? These are a few the bigger US shops, but there are a LOT of smaller and medium sized shops in the US doing the kind of work you’re describing. The US is definitely not falling behind in high-end commercial/VFX work.
https://www.imaginaryforces.com/
https://www.digitaldomain.com/
https://www.methodstudios.com/Shawn
-
[Scott Witthaus] “[Simon Ubsdell] “damp squib”
I have no clue what this is! :-)”
damp squib – noun BRITISH – a situation or event which is much less impressive than expected.
The launch of FCP X is a good example of a damp squib 😉 Just kidding, sorry, couldn’t help it.
[Scott Witthaus] “If Avid had listened to it’s users, it would have known not to chase this fad. A lot of valuable time and resources went after this “damp squib” (I think!) that Avid should not have wasted. What other requested features were put on the back-burner because of the 3D investment?”
You are in danger of disregarding the fact that there have been some truly massive stereoscopic movies that have made gazillions of dollars. This being the case I can’t really agree that it was inappropriate for AVID to have helped facilitate the workflow that made some of those movies possible.
Stereoscopic was a huge mistake – though it’s maybe too early to call it a dead duck (another idiom for you). But it’s surely a good thing that there are companies that are willing to put the effort into developing workflows that can generate massive revenue streams … just as much as it’s a good thing that there are companies that facilitate small shops to deliver more profitably.
[Scott Witthaus] “Yes, I do agree and it re-enforces some ideas that Avid is becoming a niche product for broadcast and film.”
AVID have always serviced a niche and they always will for as long as they are around – their forays into the mass market have all been ineffective or disastrous. I’m just not sure I follow why we should be dismissing their products for that reason. Niches can be hugely profitable and provide employment for a surprising large number of people. Are you saying they shouldn’t be catered for?
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “That doesn’t take away from the fact the AVID provided an incredibly solid and easy-to-use workflow while the fad lasted.”
No idea what Avid is doing better/worse/different, but I’ve done a few stereoscopic projects with FCP X over the last couple of years with Dashwood just fine. May not be perfect, maybe not the best/easiest option, but more than possible. And I’m pretty sure at just a fraction of the cost.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Robin S. Kurz] “I’ve done a few stereoscopic projects with FCP X over the last couple of years with Dashwood just fine. May not be perfect, maybe not the best/easiest option, but more than possible. And I’m pretty sure at just a fraction of the cost.”
Dashwood Stereo3D Toolbox costs 520.66 of our English pounds and therefore quite a few more of your American dollars – 799, to be precise.
A monthly subscription to Media Composer currently runs at $49 per month.
The Media Composer workflow is seriously powerful and seamless – I would recommend you try it.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “AVID have always serviced a niche and they always will for as long as they are around – their forays into the mass market have all been ineffective or disastrous.”
I agree that Avid has been in the b’cast and film niche almost exclusively, and over 40 3D films have been released in the US so far this year so it makes since for Avid to cater to their niche.
[Robin S. Kurz] ” And I’m pretty sure at just a fraction of the cost.”
If you are working on a Hollywood movie the cost between NLE’s these days is totally insignificant. Data storage alone is going to dwarf the cost of the NLE and the computer(s) it runs on.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up