-
Spatial awareness and memory recall
-
[Bill Davis] “IMO, this entire thread is about conditioned preference.
Nothing more or less.”
Actually, less.
Remove the word “conditioned” and we’re in agreement. Cognitive science suggests we’re wired the way we’re wired. Chris’ post has some great references if you want to learn more.
Show me a list of words and my eyes glaze over. Give me pictures and colors and piles in space and I can easily find my way. That’s not “conditioning”, it’s the way I think.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “It’s a big step backwards in user flexibility another reason why FCPX turns off many power users. Apple needs to up their game in this department. The monolithic app window model is not necessarily appropriate for every application.
“Okay, that’s a fair view. But again, one constrained by the belief that “big” editing also equates to superior editing editing.
But a bit suspect seen in context of the rest of the changes taking place in computing. Most computers sold now are NOT large desktop models. Those are a diminishing minority of screens in use. Laptops RULE general purpose computing. Tablets are ascendent. Smart Phones are ubiquitous.
To be stuck in the idea that any video editing app must follow the “desktop video suite” model is poor reasoning in my estimation.
For my workstyle, I haven’t had a single circumstance where I’ve felt “constrained” by not having more screen real-estate devoted to doing my video work.
Screen resolution, scalability (zoom-ability?) and accuracy have been elevated for me far above square inches.
I understand that if you’re forced to drive long distances over many hours – the Brogham approach to car design is attractive.
If someone’s life is short trips around a limited area – then having choices ranging from sports cars, to golf carts to skateboards makes a whole lot more sense.
That said, there are a LOT of grocery shopping housewives in monster SUVs clogging up the parking lots around where I live. To them, one massive conveyance is the norm. For me, not so much.
Different strokes.
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] “I know I’ll get there in the end, but to argue that X needs to take on more Lightroom style capabilities is a bit of a stretch for me right now.”
Go back and read what I wrote. I was talking about the light table feature in Apple Aperture. I never mentioned Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. Although, since you are such a proponent of X, it stuns me to hear you have picked Lightroom over Aperture. Why?
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Bill Davis] “IMO, this entire thread is about conditioned preference.”
That’s because you are blind and unwilling to open yourself up to the possibility that different people function in different ways, in spite of fifty years of research that demonstrates that they do. And, you get mean about it.
-
Yes! Thanks for posting! You capture what I considered to be the very best part of FCP. Premiere comes close, and Avid has a way, but none of them are quite able to do what Legacy did.
-
[Bill Davis] “But again, one constrained by the belief that “big” editing also equates to superior editing.”
Huh? That’s nonsense. I’m talking about how UI flexibility is appealing to power users. Power users may or may not be superior editors. The point is that for some, UI flexibility is very desirable. For some, it may even be essential.
[Bill Davis] “But a bit suspect seen in context of the rest of the changes taking place in computing. Most computers sold now are NOT large desktop models. Those are a diminishing minority of screens in use. Laptops RULE general purpose computing. Tablets are ascendent. Smart Phones are ubiquitous. “
So what?
The fact that digital devices are getting simpler and more accessible for consumers has absolutely nothing to do with what power users may want or need in their specialized tools.
[Bill Davis] “For my workstyle, I haven’t had a single circumstance where I’ve felt “constrained” by not having more screen real-estate devoted to doing my video work.”
I think that’s awesome. Doesn’t mean it’s true for everyone.
[Bill Davis] “Different strokes.”
Indeed!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
You blow my mind, Bill Davis! Can you be any more deaf to what people are saying? Tommy? Can you hear me? Tommy?
-
[Chris Harlan] “And, you get mean about it.”
Me? Mean? Odd since the people I meet and interact with in real life virtually never say that. But then again, perhaps this is an instance of that same “conditioning?”
Is it possible some here have become conditioned to read what I write with a tone that wasn’t actcually intended? Or maybe it’s my writing style. Perhaps it’s un-intendedly bristly. If so, again, my apologies.
(Actually, on reflection, I will cop to having been a bit personally grumpy the past week or so – I had a mild medical scare a few weeks ago when a new insurance policy mandated physical came back showing an elevated PSA level – the biopsy results arrived yesterday and showing NO problems – so maybe I was translating extra nerves into extra grumpiness – If so, again my apologies. Getting older sucks, huh?
But honestly, ask anyone who actually knows me, my default is neither mean nor combative. Opinionated? Absolutely. Willing to defend my thinking. Beyond question. But I never write with the intent to be mean or demeaning.
Well, again on reflection, I do suppose I tend to rise to confront what I see as dismissive or arrogant with similar brute force. I kinda dislike absolutism. And I’m surely sensitive to all that absolutists who argued that X was “crap” for so long here.
But in the end, if what I write here comes across as combative, it’s honestly from lack of craft, not from intent.
FWIW.
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] “it’s honestly from lack of craft, not from intent.
“right. sure.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[David Lawrence] “The fact that digital devices are getting simpler and more accessible for consumers has absolutely nothing to do with what power users may want or need in their specialized tools.”
We disagree on this. When I did that recent LACPUG show – Dan Lebenthol – inarguably a top tier hollywood editor – was busy exploring how consumer tools like the iPad could change his editing workflow.
Will similar tools eventually move us back toward the classic “offline-online” split workflows? And if so, what will an editing tool need to be if it’s mostly directed at finishing rather than an “everything in one” approach?
I don’t begrudge or dismiss editors who need and want high end tools.
But they have them. It’s when they come to attack or cast confusion on the tool like X and paint it as a tool that only ONE particular type of editor (and NOT the upper tier “visual” ones, obviously) will be really comfortable using – that I get uncomfortable.
That’s a short hop from entertaining an opinion like “if you’re a serious editor you’ll use AVID.” – a concept that FCP-Legacy soundly debunked industry wide. It puzzles me why so many are willing to tread that same slippery slope regarding X, but so be it.
If theres a way the voices questioning X’s ability to do the job comfortably for a particular “type” of editor – can offer a rational explanation of why its workstyle might actually impede a general users ability to get a particular type of job done – I’ll listen carefully.
But to date, this particular discussion seems to be coming largely from the same voices who’ve consistently argued that it’s a poor tool, that it’s “too different” and that it’s approach is “too radical” – although also typically when pressed to explain why – they usually reveal that they aren’t day to day users of it.
Aindreas, Chris H, Herb, Franz, and even David H have long histories here. I respect all of their opinions, (yes, even Aindreas’s!) but I can’t help but cast their arguments in the same skewed light that the clearly cast mine. And now they form the nucleas of the group arguing that X is “suspect” by virtue of some untestable and ill defined spacial awareness failing?
In real life, the standard of proof gets higher the more the kid cries wolf.
I suppose the contention is that we X folks, simply “think differently” somehow. But honestly, I think the entire difference can be explained by the fact that those on the Pro-X side have simply taken more time and effort to re-condition themselves to the functions of X. Rather than spending overmuch time trying to justifty why we think it’s overall, a somehow lower tier tool not as worthy of exploration.
But I’m open to counter argument.
So fire away.
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.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up