-
Walter Murch won’t use FCX
-
[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.”
I’ll second the question; I agree that distribution methods are changing, I’m not sure that this changes editing per se.
I suppose you can argue that editing software that is quicker and cheaper serves this market, but I’m not sure how FCPX makes an exclusive claim on either of those qualities.
Youtube also seems to be the domain of largely unedited videos (or editing of the absolute rudimentary variety). Further, it is also the domain of very polished, big budget media “pushes”. So to me I don’t get a clear picture of how that distribution model (which encompasses many production models) impacts on editing needs (except, again, that for most people the cheapest, fastest way will be the winner).
But I consider them all “movies”. They are still images and sounds put together in time. I’m not sure a distinction needs to be made unless you want to talk about them in terms of revenue models.
As for “content” – I’ve always regarded that as a term invented by accountants and distributors, but that’s another post altogether …
Franz.
-
[Mark Dobson] “What exactly are you waiting for?”
It was Apple who wrote and told Shane to wait, not I. So, exactly why you’ve chosen to project that onto me is unclear, especially as I’ve made it quite clear that I’m already moving over into the Avid camp and will be ready to rumble whenever my clients deem the time is right.
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.comDon’t miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing “The Whale” to the Big Screen:
https://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfitandSuzanneChisholm/1POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.
-
[Bill Davis] “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?”
While I agree that expanding the database underpinnings of an NLE could enable this workflow, I’m not sure that we should assume this is the intended direction for FCPX.
I think that a DAM (digital asset management system) that’s bottled inside an NLE is there for the editor. Shooting ratios are skyrocketing, post schedules are getting tighter, and the editor is caught in the middle. Editors need tools to help them sift through the mountains of video data that they manage. The Event Browser serves that purpose nicely.
Suggesting that an NLE with a DAM built in will somehow enable brave new media consumption doesn’t track for me. You can feed edited program segments into a content management system for on-demand consumption today.
A good content management system should be able to deal with other kinds of non-video media, well outside of an NLE’s usefulness. The NLE should participate in the larger content management system — not contain it. It should draw clips from and contribute sequences to it.
Specifically in the FCPX implementation, to enable the sorts of database-driven workflows you’re talking about, I think the Project Library and Event Library would have to be merged, boatloads of metadata added to projects, and the whole database exposed for interchange. I think that if your vision for FCPX (which is very interesting!) were really Apple’s long range goal, we would have seen a very different initial design in many of the parts we have.
Apple bought a wonderful DAM called artbox from Proximity, which they sold as Final Cut Server for a little more than three years. Since FCSvr worked outside the NLE and was built for customized integration into arbitrary workflows, I think it was actually much closer to your vision of the future than FCPX is — but now it’s gone.
Asset management aside, I’m still very curious on why you think editorial itself must change to accommodate a different distribution ideology. Unless you redefine the atom of consumption as something other than an edited program, you still need an editor to do some “PUSH” editorial before the consumers go “PULL” the pieces they want.
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 -
The new pull distribution model is about ubiquitous consumption of moving images, and immediate consumer feedback. A publisher posts a movie on YouTube, Vimeo, Facebook, or Twitter and immediately and continuously knows how many viewers he/she has. And gets critical review as well. Tomorrow, the publisher can post new content that reacts to the critique and popularity. (e.g., look at CollegeHumor. New movies daily.) Think like local tv news channels in competition. The creative/editorial question now is how to provide compelling, exciting movies faster that are reactive to demand and micro-targetted to audience.
In the Walter Murch past, the creative/editorial question was how to provide compelling, exciting movies that would appeal to a movie or dvd buying audience a year or more in the future. Big plans, big risks, big costs, mass appeal.
It makes sense to ask whether editorial tools need a different feature set for an instantaneous, networked world.
-
[Paul Harrison] “The new pull distribution model is about ubiquitous consumption of moving images, and immediate consumer feedback… The creative/editorial question now is how to provide compelling, exciting movies faster that are reactive to demand and micro-targetted to audience.”
The need for speed is not new — though I’d agree the need for volume is.
However, speed and volume are only the same problem if you lack human resources.
Another solution to the problem of volume is an improved collaborative toolset, so perhaps Media Composer on Unity is the better solution here?
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 -
Interestingly some audio people are liking the way audio behaves, independently, yet easily grouped into compound clips for mixing.
All the best,
Tom
Class on Demand DVDs “Complete Training for FCP7,” “Basic Training for FCS” and “Final Cut Express Made Easy”
Coming in 2011 “Complete Training for FCPX” from Class on Demand
“Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users” from Focal Press -
[Tom Wolsky] “Interestingly some audio people are liking the way audio behaves, independently, yet easily grouped into compound clips for mixing.”
Yep, which is why a cursory glance won’t give you all the info one might need, in my personal opinion.
The only real thing mentioned in the article that he reacted negatively to was interchange and lack of SAN support. It did say he looked at it in June.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “The only real thing mentioned in the article that he reacted negatively to was interchange and lack of SAN support. It did say he looked at it in June.”
There was also this:
“The lack of tracks was another killer for him. While he doesn’t really need to work with 50 tracks, he does need to leverage the ability to selectively raise or lower the levels very specifically.”
Did you look at his timeline for Hemingway & Gellhorn?
His Final Cut Pro project consisted of 22 video tracks and 50 audio tracks, combining sound elements ranging from 8 tracks of dialogue, to 24 tracks of mono and stereo sound effects with and without low frequency enhancements (LFE)!!
So messy! We can’t have that! Who could possibly understand it? And everyone knows FCP7’s audio tools are way too lousy to do any serious mixing and sound design.
I doubt WM will have any interest in FCPX unless it seriously changes. But he did have some thoughts on where to go. No surprises here:
If you didn’t use FCP, where would you go? “I’ve used Avid in the past, so I know it well. There are some very good things that Avid has, but I’m also curious about Premiere since I’m interested in technology.”
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
Far from it, Oliver.
I not only don’t rely on such a “Grand Plan” vision to make X relevant, I think the very LACK of one is critical to it’s long term success.
In my view, they’re building an agile tool based on what’s currently possible. And they know perfectly well that the market will adapt that tool into what the market needs and wants.
A database is not designed to be a particular type of thing. It’s designed to be a thing that you use to make different kinds of other things with – to solve many different kind of problems in many, many different ways.
That post from the guy at FOX sports is precisely on point. It indicated they were using it as a “player video search” tool. The program presented a new capability (robust relational search within a clip-file based video storage system) and they immediately saw that they could leverage that capability into a tool to meet their specific need to assemble player-keyed videos rapidly.
It all comes back to my initial complaint about this thread from the beginning. It was initially stuck on what the program is NOT – and only recently turning it’s attention to what the program IS (and of course what it might become.
I accept that the jury is out. But we are starting to see how X is making a few folks with solid professional needs view things in some different contexts. And I think that’s very healthy for the industry.
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
-
[Bill Davis] “But we are starting to see how X is making a few folks with solid professional needs view things in some different contexts. And I think that’s very healthy for the industry”
Agreed.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up