-
The basic problem with the skimmer: it’s shite.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] ” they’ll none of them forget what apple did here – they’ll lable apple as a batshit unreliable software vendor for all time”
Having seen a lot of these blow-ups over the years, I really doubt it. If FCP X is the best choice in 12 months, very few people are actually going to say “But we can’t buy that, because it had a really rocky introduction last year”.
—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
-
Hmm, I dunno Chris, it’s not about what FCPX might become, it’s what apple have done to FCS3.
This is a longish quote from Denis Kutchera below-
Apple has not only set themselves up for the pro market to abandon Final Cut Pro, but also the Mac platform. We set up the post and production for a TV station around Final Cut Studio, Final Cut Server, XServe and Xsan in 2009. It was a nice package from what everyone felt was a reliable source. That facility is no longer scalable. How can they now even simply add one more workstation with Final Cut Studio 3 installed? Can’t, because Apple won’t sell you the software. And how many other facilities around the world are built like this? Final Cut must have easily 50% of the post market world wide, The broadcast equipment supplier we used built a good piece of their business around this kind of installation. After all that has gone down with Apple, I can see a wholesale shift to Windows PC based solutions because you don’t have to base your business on the hardware and software from one company, there always alternatives who can supply what you need when you use Windows.
—-
Now it may not work out like that, but it has a rather plausible ring to it. I know myself that one international broadcaster based in London is getting a push from engineering to EOL final cut and switch to premiere in this budget year. That happened in the first 48 hours of FCPXs release. They were like – that software does not fly, we’re switching. The editors are pushing back hard.
Engineering, particularly in broadcasting, also quite often prefer PCs because they, or rather the PC only software they can get on them, speaks better to other arcane station assets like K2 servers and the like. Also engineering doesn’t care what editing system we might want to use. That’s been my experience in the last two broadcasters I worked for. I fought pitched battles both times for Mac hardware. Apple’s actions here have given them perfect justification to wash their hands of apple entirely. It was the massive FCP skills base that forced them to start buying apple gear in the first place. I really do think apple have screwed the pooch here.http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Hmm, I dunno Chris, it’s not about what FCPX might become, it’s what apple have done to FCS3.”
I’m severely skeptical about this notion of vendor mistrust translating into long-term losses. It’s very easy to make this kind of point hypothetically, with respect to future decisions. If FCP X is the best option in a year or two, it will be a lot harder to actually reject it because of what Apple did last week to FCS3.
—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
-
Mm. Let’s see shall we? I know a fair few engineers – they are not, I would wager, going to dig this behaviour by apple, and they have long memories, and one of their key metrics is medium term system stability.
Or actually to put it another way – it’s kind of the opposite of what you just said- even if FCPX is killing it in two years, it will be incredibly easy for systems engineering to reject it out of hand citing their experience with FCS3.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
I’d say that Avid actually had the source viewer issue figured out pretty well years ago. MC allows you to swap the timeline between the source and sequence sides. That allowed you to zoom in as far you liked on a timeline of any clip or sequence while providing a scroll bar at the bottom so you could scroll in bigger chunks – you choose. An added advantage of that methodology was that you could load a sequence into the source monitor and switch views to see what was in that sequence, mark in/out points, and remap layers so you you never had to do a cut and paste to grab pieces from a sequence to insert into another sequence. I never had to unload a sequence to grab footage from anywhere. Much more powerful than anything FC ever did in any iteration. That made it so much easier to build select reels and string-outs, load those sequences in to the source monitor, and scroll through them to view them directly. Amazingly simple and powerful and yet so old. Thank goodness Avid is not so visionary that they would break that feature in the name of progress. There is a reason that so many editors and facilities still love Avid.
-
Amen brother. I’ve always loved Avid the best for many reasons, and by the looks of things now, probably always will.
-
Mate, Skimming surely feels like shite in front of a dedicated viewer. I have been getting lots of Random crashes as well. How stable has FCP X been for you ?
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Famous quote from Mahatma Gandhi:
“Randy Ubillos, you brain damaged dwarf, FCP7 wasn’t a multitrack editor, editing is a multitrack operation, editing software is intended to be an expression of that truth.””If I am not wrong it was not Gandhi who said those famous words but Hitler .
See : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVV9wEQZmGE&feature=feedlik
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” 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