-
The Mother of All NLE Demos
-
[David Cherniack] “The software needs articulate, mature, spokespeople, willing to discuss both its strengths and weaknesses. “
Says who?? That’s a rhetorical strategy useful in a debate where each party starts with vaguely equal standing. I’d argue that the irrational savaging that X had to (and still has to) endure is prima facia evidence that X supporters NEVER had a level playing field.
There might be a time when what you’re implying becomes wise council.
But the problem might not be one of perspective – as you are so ready to argue – but missed opportunities for editors who can actually benefit from database driven editing – due to obfuscation of actual facts.
It is a fact that the database driven approach that X pioneered can save editorial time in a huge range of editing situations.
It’s a FACT that far fewer people STILL understand this software than its alternatives.
If you can’t handle a small handful of voices arguing X’s merits in a forum specifically billboarded as the place for DEBATE – then sorry. This place exists, at least in part, as the theater of spirited opposition. That’s the “or not” part.
So how about writing a bit more about how the software operates and less about how Carsten or I make you FEEL?
Billboarding me as an arrogant, unthinking and insensitive dick could well be accurate. But if my points about X are accurate and well reasoned, then so what?
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.
-
[Herb Sevush] “It’s sort of like scientology for editors.”
Oh it’s EXACTLY like that, Herb.
If Scientology was based on quantifiable results rather than gasbaggery and manipulation.
And if Scientology transferred LESS wealth from it’s adherents to the Mother Ship than virtually all other religions (it doesn’t)
And if Scientology resulted in people spending LESS time doing what religious leaders TELL them they must do – and allows them to better make up their own unique workflows by providing them with interesting new tools. (Audio ABOVE the Video!!!! HERASY I SAY!!!)
And if Scientology was ACTUALLY based on verifiable precepts rather than fake galvinometers and predatory recruitment.Other than those LITTLE things. X is precisely like Scientology.
We X folk are merely zombies. It’s surprising we can get out of our beds and do useful work without magnetic closets and pattern collision avoiding wardrobes.
Yet we struggle on.
Shrugging off all attempt to mock us by linking us rhetorically to the clueless and stupid.
I know, we just don’t listen. Sorry.
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] “If you can’t handle a small handful of voices arguing X’s merits in a forum specifically billboarded as the place for DEBATE – then sorry. This place exists, at least in part, as the theater of spirited opposition. That’s the “or not” part. “
This whole thing spun out of control when Carson asked “…why do most of you so desperately cling to the past, trying everything to find justification why tracks are better or nicer or more ‘you’.” How exactly is that shinning a light on the merits of X?
Also, take a look at the people who’ve posted in this thread. Oliver, Michael G, Bret W, Steve C, Scott W and Charlie all use X. You and Carson obvious use X. David L ,I think, uses X in part of his workflow and I think Mark S is transitioning from 7 to X.
Mark R’s facility doesn’t use X, but if in the future it becomes a viable/superior option for their needs I wouldn’t be surprised if they switched to it. On a similar note, the only reason I haven’t started using X is because there’s so little X work in my neck of the woods.
Herb doesn’t use X because it doesn’t meet his specific workflow needs (as shown in this thread). David Roth also doesn’t use X (AFAIK).
Small handful of voices? Just from a rough head count I’d say this thread is mostly populated by people that use X.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Mark R’s facility doesn’t use X, but if in the future it becomes a viable/superior option for their needs I wouldn’t be surprised if they switched to it. On a similar note, the only reason I haven’t started using X is because there’s so little X work in my neck of the woods.
Herb doesn’t use X because it doesn’t meet his specific workflow needs (as shown in this thread). David Roth also doesn’t use X (AFAIK).
Small handful of voices? Just from a rough head count I’d say this thread is mostly populated by people that use X.”
Your quote (and argument) would be well framed but for the fact that the folks who write here are an extremely small subset of those who watch this forum.
For every poster, there are likely a thousand lurkers.
So I try to remain mindful that we’re also speaking to the larger audience.
When someone posts that “X is just like all the other NLEs” no better or worse, just different. It strikes me as patently FALSE.
If it wasn’t, in fact, quite different, we wouldn’t have had the initial two years of irrational HATE leveled at it.
So I’ll remain a voice arguing that by making it so different, Apple actually DID make it “functionally better” than it’s competitors. If not, what was the point?
Andrew, if you feel that X and AVID and Premier are equivalent tools for video production. Make the points show us where the other alternates excel. If you feel, as Oliver and others have articulated, that the modern editor needs to learn ALL THREE tools to be employable or fully skilled – make the argument. Thats fine and nobody here has ever challenged that view. But not EVERYONE needs to learn 3 NLEs. In fact, most people just need ONE to get their work done. And I’d like to see them learn X because it seems to me to be the best approach.
My argument is that since X can do 90% of all projects that need getting done, AND that it can do them faster and easier with ALL the quality of any other software – theres no reason that opinion shouldn’t be articulated often and strongly.
It’s certainly NOT the only view worth holding. But it IS a fair view when one can point to real world advantages coded into the software.
Simple as that.
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.
-
[David Roth Weiss] “Meanwhile, there are other X users here who just can’t seem to fathom that there just might be good reasons why experienced sound editors might prefer tracks.”
[David Roth Weiss] “Meanwhile, there are other X users here who just can’t seem to fathom that there just might be good reasons why experienced sound editors might prefer tracks.”
Oh stop it.
I spent my first 15 years in audio. Two track, then 4-track then 8 and 16 track.
Tracks are fine when the environment you’re dealing with is a linear progression of one type of digital signal.
Tracks become a burden when they’re arranged in a super rigid arbitrary construction where the interface designer TELLS the users what tracks MUST go up and which MUST go down.
If you can’t see the value of questioning that assumption – particularly in a world where field content largely comes in with audio and video MUXED into a single file. Then the problem isn’t whether tracks are inherently good or bad. It’s whether or not modern NLES should respond to the way that files are actually being created in the field.
What you’re doing is arguing that video up and audio down – separated by rigid lanes (your vaunted tracks) is the only and best concept that will ever be.
And I call BS on that.
The way X handles modern file based content is functionally better. Because without tracks, there are no inadvertent track collisions and less track patching And when your audio is tied to video tracks that you will be re-arranging and mixing just like the audio – the audio only mixing paradigm might actually turn out to be too weak to get the job done. X proved that by honoring the actual relationship of muxed AV files and allowing the editor to separate the results (or not) – that you actually can do great work without ANY visible audio tracks whatsoever. Always? No. But sometimes. And when that fits the job, it’s BETTER.
Heres a timeline from a music video I did nearly 3 years ago in X.
Look MA, NO audio tracks. Why? Because for this, they are totally unnecessary. The produced track is Muxed into the Primary. Since audio editing is off the table for this project, the project doesn’t clutter things up with totally unnecessary tracks. AND since X doesn’t need audio and video separation, I could better think in compositing modes positioning video layers as they make sense, rather than as the NLE designer required me to.
Basically, all audio does not always need to be dealt with via channel strips with tiny switches and log taper faders. That’s ONE great way to handle audio. But so is rubber banding. So is Roles based output. And smart guys in HUGE shops are reporting huge productivity gains via roles export over manual stem creation. That’s a fact. Since Apple didn’t decide that all audio MUST remain stuck in the paradigm of 1971 – we have some nice alternatives now.
And there’s nothing wrong with that.
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] “And I’d like to see them learn ‘x'( my edit) because it seems to me to be the best approach.”
Seems to me I’ve heard the same words come from the mouths of more than a few Scientologists.
[Bill Davis] “For every poster, there are likely a thousand lurkers.
So I try to remain mindful that we’re also speaking to the larger audience.
When someone posts that “X is just like all the other NLEs” no better or worse, just different. It strikes me as patently FALSE.”
So you see yourself as some kind of missionary in the Church of X. OK. The problem is unlike most religions where the functioning deity is invisible, or at least, liminal, X is just software which makes it tangible and testable. You find X faster, better, and who knows, groovier, than all the others, which you’ve no doubt tested extensively. Others, who’ve used X extensively, say, “Nope. It’s got its strengths and weaknesses, appropriate in some uses, less so in others.” They sound reasonable. You sound like a garden variety religious fanatic…unreasonable, and to use your own self-description “an arrogant dick”…and are apparently happy to be so perceived. You can argue that it’s all about the software but your fanaticism makes it all about you and not about the software, even, I’d guess, for majority of the faceless thousands who you claim to be preaching to. You might find yourself a more effective missionary if you took the example of some of my Catholic priest friends in India, by letting your works do the talking.
FWIW
David
https://AllinOneFilms.com -
[Bill Davis] “And smart guys in HUGE shops are reporting huge productivity gains via roles export over manual stem creation. That’s a fact. Since Apple didn’t decide that all audio MUST remain stuck in the paradigm of 1971 – we have some nice alternatives now. “
Bill, your music video timeline illustrates your point, but that type of cut isn’t the only thing people are doing in X. As you know, I’m a strong proponent of X, I think it kicks ass. But there are absolutely some things it could do better. (New thread coming up on that!) I’ll keep it short as the “debate” has once again hijacked a great thread that has nothing to do with it but… When you’ve got a project like the one below, there are absolutely some “track-like” functions that would be very useful to have in FCP X. Not tracks, but vertical position settings (Z-order?), Roles as groups that can be effected without comping, things of that nature. I could have cut this in a tracked NLE, but to me the benefits of X outweigh the drawbacks by a long shot
FCP X is “not” the same as other NLE’s in many ways, and like you, I think that’s a good thing. It’s also not perfect, and there are valid reasons not to use it in some workflows. Personally I think those shortcomings will be addressed going forward, and there will be less of them, but for now, it’s true. (it’s true of *every* NLE as well) There are also a lot of stupid, invalid reasons for not using X, and I’m not above the occasional, veiled, “luddite!” jabs when I hear them. 😉 I want X to keep improving, to get to the point where any “X can’t do that” comment can be countered with “yeah it does” without offering a workaround. Adding effects to an entire Role, or an entire mix is one example. Yes, you can do it, but not without comps within comps etc. Everyone who uses X, including you, should want Apple to “fix” things like this. And in a way that blows the existing methods away. 😉
That whole “keep it short” thing didn’t work out huh? lol
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
I literally don’t disagree with anything you wrote Charlie.
Of course there are circumstances where tracks are convenient, useful, even superior ways to handle some types of work. It’s horses for courses and that’s fine.
I’m just a bit tired of those who seem to argue that everything necessary or useful about audio in an NLE was TOTALLY covered by track based systems, and that because X is trackless somehow that means it’s also hobbled. I’ll always listen to arguments from guys like you who understand both systems. And acknowledging what’s useful about tracks is great.
But to listen to some who have virtually no experience in trackless X style editing- argue that it’s somehow deficient? – nope. Not buying it. That’s misinformation that requires addressing.
New editors coming to X often have their biggest issues coming to grips with how it handles audio.
But you and I both know that in the vast majority of cases, the answer is “Just fine.” and in some ways “better than other systems” – NOT – “it’s too different to use properly.” which is still a theme out there that folks like Mr. Wise sometimes (hopefully inadvertently) propagate.
That’s 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.
-
[Paul Neumann] “Unless we’re talking about Creative Cloud and if that’s the case then Apple is right and Adobe is full of crap, right?”
Creative Cloud is fine. I’ve never said one thing arguing against the software or even the cloud approach. (actually let me amend that, I’ve reported that CC is likely great when it works – but it’s kinda a mess when it doesn’t – something I’ve experienced first hand with my Photography subscription, but that’s another thread)
Forced rental with a ransom-ware back end is what I believe to be toxic to the individual editor and the industry as a whole.
In that way, yes, the executive suite at Adobe is damaging the future of the editing profession IMO. Complete on your product, fine. Demand fealty with implied threat of career stoppage. Not so fine.
None of which says a THING about the fine work their software designers, support people and others are doing. I find PPro too traditional a design for my taste – as I was happy to see FCP Legacy put to pasture as well, but from what I hear iAdobe is moving traditional fixed track timeline editing steadily if slowly toward the future. Nothing wrong with that.
Is that clear enough, Paul?
It’s not the software – its the BUSINESS MODEL I find toxic. And sadly I doubt that’s going to change anytime soon.
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.
-
Andrew, it’s still fair to point out that this entire thread is two guys who DO NOT use X, arguing with a guy who does.
That a does not make Carsten right. But it does make him more informed about X workflows than either of you guys.
If you want to keep commenting on X, I have a modest suggestion. Learn the software.
If after you truly understand how the X system works, you want to critique it. Then you should absolutely feel free.
But to dismiss a workflow without actually learning it seems to me to be really silly.
You can do it in less than 3 months full time, or about a year part time so long as you are consistently doing deliverable work so that you are pushed to solve real world problems not just find “differences” and turn back without addressing them.
To speak intelligently about a car. You need to drive the car. Perhaps?
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