-
You are all amateurs….
-
Where is the assumption that dumbing down an editing applications suddenly becomes a new paradyne… or, an innovation?
Does changing the UI and file management structure represent innovation or simply change? Perhaps the best way to answer that is too look at through the eyes of Apple’s competition.
Contrary to Apples current appoach, AVID and ADOBE have adobted changes in their applications that didn’t alienate it’s existing users. AVID in it’s last release even introduced a more mouse friendly UI to compete with FCP and ADOBE. And… ADOBE was always trying to keep up with FCP editing capabilities on various levels (such as audio and color correction).
Neither of FCP’s competitors enjoyed watching FCP capture marketed share… but, now they see opportunity to gain it back without near as much effort as Apple took to gain the market share.
FCPX’s innovation is (IMHO) actually only change…
Much of what you see in FCPX already exists in AVID and/or ADOBE. So far, FCPX’s biggest impact has been that it provides AVID and ADOBE the opportunity to show what it can do vrsus FCPX (or FCP). In effect, Apple has becomes AVID’s and ADOBE’s best advocate (even if by accident or indifference).
When I hear discussions about the new innovations and the implications of opportunities that FCPX provides. I have to put and EQUAL emphasis on opportunity and innovations that AVID and ADOBE currently provide. Specially, when much of FCPX capabilites are not that dissimilar to what FCPX claims as “new”. The biggest opportunity is that… Apple simply handed it’s marketing advantage’s it worked hard to achieve for the past 10 yrs. over to it’s competitors.
When I hear phrases that FCPX represents “the future”… I look at the competition and see they already have most of FCPX’s “future” AND gained this “future/new” without alienate it’s current user base. So… what does this mean… it means (in IMHO)… FCPX is less about innovation and more about simply change… a change that simply dumbs down the product so that it could appeal to a different (perhaps new) customer – nothing more.
Sooo…until FCPX gains it’s “new” customer base to match it’s “new” editing “paradyne”… AVID and ADOBE will be picking up the piece$.
Is Apple back to square one by introducing FCPX? I think the best answer is – not yet. But, they do seem to be trying very hard…. with ADOBE and AVID just watching from the sideline.
-
[Michael Sacci] “There is no way early FCPer can be thought of as Youtubers. Even though it was a fraction of the cost of AVIDs or Discreet Edits, it was a serious outlay of cash. A FCP was still 5-10K. We were also doing work we where getting paid for. (Which is the definition of being a pro). Our goal was also to use the tools to put out work that looked as good as people using an AVID and BetaSP or DigiBeta cameras.”
An FCP setup with serious video I/O, a broadcast monitor, etc. was expensive, and of course the software was way too pricey for the ‘kids’… so they, um, ‘borrowed’ the app and didn’t worry about serious video I/O — you could always print to tape via your FireWire camcorder. FCP ran pretty well on the Blue & White G3, Apple’s first FireWire-enabled tower, and Mac towers were still mainstream systems then, not the high-end monsters they’ve since turned into (the B&W G3 started at $1600).
Of course it was a little awkward that you couldn’t actually capture a full 60 minute MiniDV tape to your 12 GB hard drive, but… a whole bunch of people in their mid to late 20s now got their start with video and editing like this, and a lot of us (I’m 28, I was there) have tossed tens of thousands of dollars at Apple since then, and have brought their products into all sorts of new market segments, including the high-end, as we’ve gone on to do more serious things.
The long-term impact of winning “Youtubers” is not to be underestimated.
—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
-
If you can deduct the cost of yer software and gear, you’re a pro.
If not, it’s a hobby and you’re an amateur.
Just ask the IRS. And check with your accountant.
-
[Joe Moya] “Where is the assumption that dumbing down an editing applications suddenly becomes a new paradyne… or, an innovation? “
Right next to the knee-jerk assumption that a new paradigm is “dumbing down”. It may be “increasing efficiency”.
In non-linear, an editing job is a relational database. Final Cut Pro has always had PLENTY of non intuitive, and even clumsy, editing procedures. Hearing people ooh and aah over simply dragging audio and video fades, which Vegas has had since inception, has been a hoot. You learn them and you forget how tough the learning curve was. That doesn’t make them intuitive.
Many of us who’ve been around a long time tend to see computer editing as a 2D representation of an old Steenbeck or Prevost.
For good or bad, this steps away from that. Even some of the defaults in FCP X seem to make more sense than previous ones, being based on probability of what you want rather than default linear editing styles. I like that.
____
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”
-
@ Chris Kenny
I agree with your point. This is a repost of mine, but is somewhat in line with what you’re saying:
I make my living as an editor and on FCS. Sure, I am disappointed, but really like FCP X and have seen tremendous benefits in my workflow and for my job’s near-term projects. I don’t think that Apple is abandoning the pro. In fact, I have a problem with that term as I think it’s a subjective and inconsistent in use. Perhaps Apple is reimagining what that pro (which includes prosumer) editorial space is and making the change now as it projects it’s software and hardware goals in the coming years.
As for people jumping ship – it’s going to happen without a doubt. Always does and always will as people don’t want to accept change and the methods/motives behind it. I believe Apple will make up for those it loses in grand number and FCPX will be a trojan horse app in the long run in the way the iphone and iPad have been. It’s been said that the big companies and studios and such will be the only home for pros (in paraphrase) , but as with iphones and iPads, when the vast numbers of people using FCPX and subsequent iterations, it’s vast array of third party hooks, and the hardware that people will certainly want, I think it will be the business that will have to cave in to the populous to a certain (not necessarily total) extent. We’re seeing that now. The iPhone and iPad has infiltrated business and IT departments where people thought it never would or could because they’ve become excellent personal devices and business devices. Not necessarily the best, but the preferred. FCP 1-7 had the same affect actually.
Believe me, FCPX did not meet my expectations, but in many ways it exceeded them and gave me a new way to perceive how I leverage information in my editorial workflow. Aside from learning new key commands, this version of FCP is akin to how I felt about Motion when it first came out – I could just work and not have the software in my face so much. I could play and experiment more and focus more on the creativity.
My FCP 7 still works. My Multibridge Pro 2 still works. I am not jumping ship just yet. I am admittedly hopeful and yet still wary of what my or may not come. Though with the power of computers these days, the sophistication of even simple AV and imaging tools, and general accessibility of communication tools and of course the internet, it’s increasingly hard for studios to compete with a competent person or persons with their own gear and Apple knows this. Studios of many sizes have already downsized and closed for this very reason.
I like to think that’s there’s “pros” in many spaces of content creation. As technology levels the playing field even further and will continue to do so, FCP X on it’s own doesn’t need to be everything, but it Should be accessible to all these spaces via third party hooks. Think of it like iphone/iPad apps. Who would have thought that having mega applications on our desktops that do so much would be trickle down to having simple apps that just do specific things we need done and do it well.
Part of what I love about this industry is that it’s constantly changing. That’s what makes it fun. That what keeps me learning. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been looking at that Pr icon in my production suite with an itchy finger, but just out of curiosity to see what other’s are talking about. I am having more fun learning FCPX cause it’s new and shiny and stuff!
Tangier
-
[Joe Moya] “Where is the assumption that dumbing down an editing applications suddenly becomes a new paradyne… or, an innovation? “
I’m not sure what’s supposed to ‘dumbed down’ about metadata and arranging the timeline via clip relationships, vs. bins and arranging the timeline by placing clips into generic tracks.
[Joe Moya] “Does changing the UI and file management structure represent innovation or simply change? Perhaps the best way to answer that is too look at through the eyes of Apple’s competition.”
Through the eyes of Apple’s competition, the iPhone was going to be a dud product. Apple regularly makes bold moves that competitors would never make. They are the world’s most valuable technology company (and the third-largest company in the world overall, after a couple of oil companies) as a consequence. “Apple must be doing something wrong because if this is the right move why aren’t Apple’s competitors doing it?” is not really a great argument.
Especially when one of those competitors is Avid.
Frankly, it might make more sense to look at what Avid has done over the last 10 years and do the opposite.
[Joe Moya] “Much of what you see in FCPX already exists in AVID and/or ADOBE.”
User experience matters. A lot. The argument you’re making is the video-industry equivalent of “What’s the big deal about the iPhone? There are lots of other phones with e-mail, web browsers and touch screens”. Skip ahead for years… the mobile platforms that powered those “lots of other phones” are basically dead.
I get that editors who’ve spent the last 15 years working with a traditional multitrack timeline are on the fence about the changes in FCP X (though I’ve yet to see anyone simultaneously demonstrate they’ve really gotten their head around the magnetic timeline, and still hate it), but I am absolutely sure that new editors will understand FCP X much more quickly than other NLEs, and that factor combined with its price is could very well make it the Next Big Thing in the long run.
—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
-
Increasing efficiency?
If you look at AVID’s AMA linking of ref. video files… it increases efficiency using an existing file management structure. FCPX decided to use metadata in a way that not only changes the venaculor but assumes that you even need to change the existing file management structure to achieve this “new” level of efficiency.
AVIDs AMA linking simply proves that to be not true…you didn’t need to go down the development road that Apple decided to achieve that is fundamentally the same results – linking source files via a meta-data index WITHOUT loosing the file management system that is more flexible and commonly used (…for a good reason… I might add).
If you are using the term “relational database” the way I have seen it used in practice… then, FCPX simple has very little “new” to add. The only thing it could add that perhaps AVID’s current file linking structure is that it is less flexible but most would consider to be easier to use… since the application does all the organizing for you… and… that… assume you like the way FCP organizes the files (and/or) their references in the first place. To me, that is a bit presumptious.
To say FCPX’s approach makes more sense is perhaps a bit “knee jerk”ish of a assumption… and, one that the competition will definately quickly point out it’s weaknesses. Until then, the competition doesn’t have to do anything… the change alone is seen as a weakness because it is not proven to be useful at ALL levels of usage by editors.
-
[Joe Moya] “To say FCPX’s approach makes more sense is perhaps a bit “knee jerk”ish of a assumption…”
No more than saying it doesn’t.
It’s a rethinking. Not always bad.
____
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”
-
“I’m not sure what’s supposed to ‘dumbed down’ about metadata and arranging the timeline via clip relationships, vs. bins and arranging the timeline by placing clips into generic tracks.”
That easy to answer… because that part is less about dumbing down and more about change for the sake of change. AVID does (more or less) the same thing… and… did it without making the kind of changes to the more common file managment structure that every NLE uses. Plus, leaves the file managment more flexible and acts less like a “black box” approach that FCPX seems to use.
Bins or Clips…call them what you like… makes no difference… it is all about how those bins and/or clips are linked… and, the degree of flexibile you need when defining clips/bins. FCPX approach will definately work… but, so will ADOBE’s or AVID’s approach to organizing video for editing.
Is FCPX’s approach easier..? perhaps… is it more flexible..? NO. To me the trade off is that FCPX choose simplicity over flexibilty. I firmly believe both simplicity and flexibililty could have been achieved by FCPX if they had had the narrower and more professional market in mind when they wrote FCPX application.
As for magnetic timeline… well, ADOBE has their version this “new” editing technique…but, it is far more flexible and MUCH less encroaching on the application’s existing methods. In essense, when ADOBE went from 32b to 64b they did not ignore history but also acknowledged it weaknesses… and, tried to find a common ground.
FCPX is defined by it’s lack of common ground from what FCP was to what it is now… no doubt, that makes Apple’s competitors very happy. By the same token, this lack of common ground could easily mistaken as “new”… but, to me… it is just difference for the sake of expanding their market share…but, does so at the expense of those they worked for the past year trying to appeal to. IMHO, that is not the best way to develop new market share… but, it definately is one way.
-
Nope…what I am saying is that FCPX is not re-thinking anything… much of what they call new is not new… it’s already been re-thought and being applied in ADOBE’s and AVID’s NLE’s.
However, FCPX does use new terms and unorthodox approaches to achieve the same results. It just seems to me AVID and ADOBE have done the same (and then some) but without all the monkey dust and loss of flexibilty.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up