-
Tonight’s the night
-
[Bill Davis] “[Michael Aranyshev] “The have no idea about editing.”
Really.
Dont’ tell Randy, the chief architect.
Since he coded KeyGrip, Premier 1.0, FCP Legacy – all before he designed X, I’d say the evidence indicates he understands editing better than either you or I do since his name has been high up on the architecture lists of at least three of the best selling video editing apps of the past generation.”
Not necessarily true Bill. I worked with Randy in the FCP 1.2-3.0 era, and I can say that he did not fully understand editing then. He fully understood programming in ways that I cannot even comprehend, but that does not necessarily mean you understand the needs of the end-user. To the best of my knowledge, FCPX is the first project that he was the product designer for. For everything else, he was the lead engineer, which is definitely NOT the same as being the chief architect in my opinion. That would be the designer’s job. There were many good-natured yet heated arguments between the FCP designer at the time and Mr. Ubilous about “what editors want”, like keyboard mapping, which Randy insisted that nobody wanted. I can say that in most (probably ALL) cases I think the designer was right, and Randy was wrong. That doesn’t mean that he isn’t a kick-ass engineer (which he is) but at that time at least, he did not truly understand his user-base.
Since many of these arguments took place at Quark’s cafe during NAB, I’ll use a geeky Star Trek reference. Scotty might have been the best engineer in the galaxy, but I don’t think we’d want him taking over the bridge when the Enterprise is in Klingon territory.
Live long and prosper
Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee -
Thanks Chris for confirming what was so bleeding obvious when looking at NLEs that Randy was involved with. Perhaps to placate some, I should have pointed out the shortcomings in FCP legacy. Having worked with some talented software and hardware developers in DAW land, I wonder what all NLE designers and coders really know about the needs of editors.
All NLEs that I have compared to DAWs show too many key strokes, bad ergonomics and every one of them with the exception of Vegas (I haven’t tried the latest Adobe offering), have awful audio editing & processing. Database management at the heart of most sound effects libraries in DAWs are hugely simpler and easier to search and retrieve. FCPX is interesting in that it is heading in the right direction for keyword searching. A typical DAW has to manage around 30,000 sound effects, retrieve them with simple search string commands and be able to audition and place them quickly. They have been doing that for over a decade so excuse me for not getting excited about metadata as being somehow new and revolutionary.
How NLEs interface with 9 pin tape machines for capture and playout have always been seriously flawed. They all copied AVID who got it wrong from day one. No matter what people put up as Randy’s pedigree in NLE development, I just have to compare the results to simple benchmarks in DAW development that they could have so easily stolen if they truly understood how much better they were from a users point of view.
-
[Chris Jacek] ” I can say that in most (probably ALL) cases I think the designer was right, and Randy was wrong. That doesn’t mean that he isn’t a kick-ass engineer (which he is) but at that time at least, he did not truly understand his user-base.”
A false contention on it’s face, IMO.
You simply can’t say that he “did not truly understand his user-base” and at the same time look at the fact that the program he coded grew into the single most successful NLE program on the planet. (even tho it only ran on hardware and software that had a fractional adoption rate compared to it’s Windows competitors.)
Or is your contention that millions bought and used the program whilst somehow deluded about how poorly he designed it for the very users who were buying it left and right?
It may be deeply important and even “mission critical” to editors like you, but In all my years of successful corporate editing, i’ve NEVER re-mapped a keyboard. Not once.
I know others do. But it would be interesting to know if that’s 40%, or 1% of “all FCP editors.”
What people in this forum keep doing over and over and over again is insist that once you become a “pro editor” what you need, must be close to what they need.
And I stand firmly in opposition to that contention.
Because “editor” today – simply isn’t what it used to be.
There were a few types of editors 20 years ago – largely Movie editors and TV editors.
And today you have a hundred different kinds of editors.
“Video editing” in the modern era covers a HUGE spectrum of divergent needs.
I think Mr. Ubillos’s original approaches to these things focused on a tool that worked better, for more editors, than any one else’s solutions. In and for the era when it was designed and deployed.
That’s precisely what I think he’s done again with X. Designed a great tool for a new era of content creation and consumption.
So sorry, but I believe your “designers” have actually been proved to have been wrong – and Randy right.
Simply because his original program “out competed” everyone else’s in the open market for more than a decade.
And now I suspect he’ll do the same with a new tool for a different, more “connected” era.
In part because he wasn’t overly blinded by what a minority needed – but rather started with what the majority of editors actually needed, then added additional “high end” features once the core was correct.
As a guy who’s been editing with FCP since before JKL was implemented – I know first hand that this precise approach worked brilliantly with FCP Legacy.
I suspect it will work equally well with X.
We’ll see.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
[Bill Davis] “And today you have a hundred different kinds of editors.
“Video editing” in the modern era covers a HUGE spectrum of divergent needs. “
Yep, and I think FCPX caters to 90% of them. Maybe they deliberately don´t aim FCPX at the Hollywood Movie/Avid market, because that would mean the millions of others would´t be getting the best tool for their job? And how many big gigs did FCP7 get really? I mean blockbuster gigs. Not many, really.
Who says nowadays which NLE-style and paradigm is objectively the right one? When Apple came out with a one-button gadget-phone it was a toy. and Blackberry was the tool for professionals with buttons and superior e-mail services. Now the iPhone does pretty much everything a Blackberry does (though not the same way) and a whole lot more. So for button-phoners the Blackberry is still THE phone; it is maybe a better phone in its core functionality. But the iPhone and iOs and App-Store are built to do more.
I feel the FCPX story is similar. First it looked like a one-button tool, then Apple and 3rd parties filled it and now it is already near where FCP7 was after only 1 year. The iPhone needed 2 or more to allow for exchange servers to be accepted I believe.Some say they refuse to adapt to an NLE, the NLE should do what they did until now. Well, there are competitors going that way. You might have to stay there. FCPX will not change its paradigm, because Apple is convinced its the right way to tackle the next years of editing.
And in my productions so far I have to agree with them in a lot of their ideas.
-
[alban egger] “Ahem….in FCP7 and I believe other NLEs I need a modifier to drag audio-disconnected from the video for a J-/L-cut. “
Just so completely not true. You CAN create that condition for yourself, if you wish, but a single click or button push makes that condition go away until you want it back. I’ve worked for years without clips linked.
[alban egger] “When did they think about J-/l-cuts? Long after most of the app design was in place. What does it mean? The have no idea about editing.”
This doesn’t make any sense.
[alban egger] “How does a modifier bother you? FCP7 was full of modifiers. FCPX understands in many occasions what you want to do without telling it. In FCP7 you need a lot more keystrokes or clicks to achieve the same results.”
I’m thinking you don’t have a lot of experience with FCP 7 or you never bothered to learn aspects of it beyond the way you were using it.
[alban egger] ” And in FCP7 I had to press “ssss” and “rr”. In FCPX one stoke is enough or often not even needed.”
Again, FCP is a lot more fluid than you seem to think it is.
-
[Chris Harlan] “Again, FCP is a lot more fluid than you seem to think it is.”
Chis, I really wonder how many of the folks who think FCP7 is so limited ever really mastered it. Despite its EOL and legacy baggage, it’s still one of the most flexible NLEs out there!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
That’s a part of the whole FCP phenomenon. There are usually at least three ways to do the same thing in FCP. Some very apparent but less efficient, some extremely efficient but not so obvious. So often talking to a fellow FCP editor is like talking to a user of completely different NLE.
-
Actually, this is very helpful, Bill.
[Bill Davis] “NEVER charge for things based on TIME” (although I redacted unfairly, to highlight the generality).
thanks!
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “star”
I’ve been thinking about this and running some experiments, and I’ve benefited to your ample knowledge of X.
It all comes down to a simple question: how can you listen to 7 — nay: 2 — tracks of audio at the same time and evaluate a single one?
[wait for it]
You can’t.
Therefore, I don’t see the advantage you’re gaining, ergo the png you posted. It’s unnecessary for evaluating an audio stream. (Oh, and I lamented over the word “stream.”)
Even in cases where the first 22.28 frames (yes, that’s subframes) in X are syncable (to coin a new homophone) and the other bits are not, then you can simply range select and add the audio to any point you want, at that moment, I would use Q and then create a compound clip.
Granted, you’re free to do whatever you want, and while I’m learning lots from your posts, I will still continue to use X, Legend, and PP.
-
[TImothy Auld] “en if it’s a flat rate there is an understanding that that flat rate will only take up so much of my time.”
Another way of saying that is socially necessary labor time. For me, I nudge down the money if the creative project is high. I nudge up the money if there’s corporate marketing involved.
Someone who has a good script and needs some help, I have charged less.
A Marketing campaign that has a terrible script and needs help, I have charged more.
The marketing bids, for me though, have always negotiated rate/hour and I argue them as shooting ratio. Saying things like “If I shoot 1 hour of footage, I still have to watch that 1 hour of footage.”
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up