-
Walter Murch won’t use FCX
-
… to continue with the off-topic.
https://www.sonicscoop.com/2011/10/27/avid-announces-restructuring-lays-off-10-of-workforce/
(… a different David Weiss, I assume?)This article has a bit more detail and context – including a bit on the recent Pro Tools update.
Franz.
-
Oliver, I agree with much of what you say, but I’ll note that the Filemaker Pro that Walter grew to know and love started out as a “flat file” system – and only build in quasi-relational capabilities as it progressed.
What I see in X is a much more traditional relational database structure, and as such, it actually capable of more complexity (and therefore might be somewhat harder to grasp) than what FM-Pro presented.
What I see in X is actually hides much of the power of the underlying database, but I expect that that’s precisely where much of the development work in the future will center. We’re learning the baby steps of key wording and metadata tagging in the current build. There’s no telling what kind of DB hooks the industry will come up with in the future, once you have a fully fleshed out program where all the digital data, video, audio, titles, pictures, (and even groupings of the same), can be manipulated in relation to anything else.
Combine that with a world where data “hooks to”, is accessible by, and can be sorted, found and consumed by anyone anywhere via the web, and the possibilities are pretty profound for the long range.
At least in my view.
Mr. Murch, as well as all the rest of us except the very youngest are from a world where this stuff wasn’t possible. In the new Google/Apple-ish world, it’s the future. Whether we like it or not.
FWIW.
“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
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “it’s clearly a consumer product and I don’t think you’re going to find an argument in this forum on that point.”
I for one don’t buy into that argument. We and Apple may have a different definition of “pro”. Clearly Apple thinks they have designed a starting point for a completely new approach to editing that is functional for professional editors. Whether we accept that or not is something else. Right now, FCP X is cumbersome to use in certain advanced workflows, but quite frankly I think it’s even more cumbersome to use for the direct-to-web producers. I think it is actually closer to pro than consumer/web/amateur, which is why these discussions become so fractured. It’s evolving and so will editors’ approaches to it.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
The main issue is that they catered to a certain market in a big big way. Then, without any warning, dropped us. Changed the app to something we cannot use without saying, “we decided the best course of action was to pursue this form of editing and delivery.”
Although them inviting Walter Murch to the pre-screening with all the rest seems odd. Did they think that he’d love it and be able to use it? Did they REALLY think that? Did they remove all these pro features, redesign things in a way that makes it useless for many of the pros that they invited, and think that we’d somehow LIKE it?
I find that odd. Did they think that Walter Murch would still be able to use it on feature films? Really?
Shane
GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD…don’t miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
[Franz Bieberkopf] “[Bill Davis] “Most people don’t edit movies.”
Bill, I am not sure what distinction you are making here between movies and movies, but the rest of your post is more to the point:
[Bill Davis] “The larger play is increasingly “direct to an audience” via the web.” etc.
I think it’s generally accepted that FCPX is aimed at this market – it’s clearly a consumer product and I don’t think you’re going to find an argument in this forum on that point.
The debate here seems to be why Apple chose to label it as “Pro”.
Franz.”
Franz,
The distinction is between MOVIES – a traditional thing watched in a destination theater and then sold as a discrete unit thereafter via DVD or download. And web-based content like informational programs you might consume via YouTube, VIMEO or the like.
In broad terms, it’s PULL verses PUSH content. (In the sense that Hollywood and the networks used to have to PUSH their content out in the marketplace for consumption. Today, the world is moving rapidly toward PULL consumption.
That’s the world I think FCP-X is heading towards. Judging it totally agains prior programs designed to be excellent at creating PUSH content misses both what it is, and where it fits into the new way things are evolving.
Hope that helps explain what I’m thinking.
“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] “In broad terms, it’s PULL verses PUSH content. (In the sense that Hollywood and the networks used to have to PUSH their content out in the marketplace for consumption. Today, the world is moving rapidly toward PULL consumption.
That’s the world I think FCP-X is heading towards. Judging it totally agains prior programs designed to be excellent at creating PUSH content misses both what it is, and where it fits into the new way things are evolving.”
Does the change in distribution and consumption patterns require a change in production? What do you think the differences between PUSH editorial and PULL editorial are, and how does NLE design meet one or the other?
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
Yes Shane,
They did EXACTLY that.
Now the big question is WHY. And the scary answer is that they saw that what you and I used to do (build large, expensive, top quality content that is expensive, rare and therefore must attract a major audience to succeed) is NOT necessarily the same thing the market will want done in the future. In the future, the market may be more suited to smaller, more targeted, “micro-info blurbs” that people can seek out, access, and consume more rapidly and with less time and attention cost than the big, monolithic “PROGRAM” of the past.
There already were good programs to do the “BIG JOB” work.
But nothing really great to do the videos that the market will increasingly want in the future.
Big programs will still happen, but for every one of those, it’s quite likely that there will be a hundred or a thousand smaller information videos that drive even better economic results in more situations and to more people.
This change isn’t all just about FCP. It’s about editing itself and where it’s going overall.
Interesting times.
“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
-
Walter,
I think the question is whether PULL remains at some arbitrary “program” level as is currently. Or whether Apple sees a future where PULL takes place INSIDE a broader content management system where the program creator can step in, adapt and change elements, and the links to the outside can remain accessible to the audience that you’re serving.
Why else build a editing program with so much database stuff INSIDE?
In a world of search, allowing the option for customers to go into your own purpose managed and structured system to access content is pretty powerful. And I think that’s part of the long-term X plan.
“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
-
While most news I have seen on the Murch/FCPX matter, no one mentions this little blurb that was in the linked blog:
“While Walter is encouraged by the updated FCPX version last month, he hasn’t used it on any real work yet, so he is cautiously optimistic”
Hmm. I guess people hear what they want to hear as everyone else is reporting that Murch won’t use it.
It sounds to me like he look at it, said “There’s no audio tracks! What am I to do?” and moved on, and then actually liked to hear about XML in the next release, and the access to projects on a SAN has been solved, too. Coming from an award winning sound design perspective, perhaps it’s understandable, but doesn’t tell the whole story, really. Maybe he just can’t use it today. Also understandable.
His Filemaker Pro database is interesting as well. I wonder what he thought of the timeline index, or I wonder what he would think of using compound clips in the browser for further organization and assemblies.
I think what has become more clear over reading all of the posts here, is that FCPX takes much longer than a cursory glance to begin to be understood. It is also the most talked about part of his presentation. I would be fasciated to hear the whole thing, especially his thoughts on the end of film.
Jeremy
-
[Bill Davis] “They did EXACTLY that”
I think you are putting entirely too much faith into a “grand plan”. I don’t think that’s the case with Apple. If there were, you wouldn’t be hearing all these rumors about an Apple TV system. That would clearly be targeted at fairly standard “big programs”. Granted, the delivery may be over the web, but the trend is away from small web content to moving real, long-form news and dramatic production to the web. The Internet replaces TV networks, but the production and post paradigms don’t change much. At least that’s my forecast.
I think Apple looked at the mish-mash of what had evolved with the ownership of the Studio apps and FC Server and decided to start over, combine and simplify. They started from a clean slate without any real adherence to the past nor to any targeted distribution plan down the road.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up