Aindreas Gallagher
Forum Replies Created
-
touché.
Still.
You won’t work in the primary though eh? how crazy a statement about the state of the FCPX timeline is that?
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
you know what I mean though – when you talk about editing as a thing a place does where they put down seats and pay the heating, or a thing where they ask you what you can use – there have been two applications – AVID and FCP, you don’t see places with multiple suites running vegas, I dimly understand that there is a lot of great stuff in vegas, some of the killer features get posted here occasionally as prior art. but vegas sort of doesn’t matter in the broader scheme of things. and it hasn’t for its fairly long existence.
its not what the courses in the colleges teach.
I’m saying that this is FCPX’s destination, and its approaching it more rapidly than people might think.
its timeline particularly is off in the crazy weeds, and apple being apple, as a fundamental – this is our philosophical call thing – its likely going to stay there.
that is completely outside the issue of the editor’s innate skill and craft – brilliant people, with the latitude to cut completely on their own kit, who have made FCPX their own, are choosing and crafting approaches with a tool that suits them – there are plenty on here who could lay me to waste as a neophyte editor, using nothing but a scissors and some twine, as it were.
I just think apple have sent this software far out to a weird, peripheral, motion application type orbit, and it really is not coming back.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “If FCPX is adopted by your clients, why will it change your approach? I don’t understand.
Of your clients, has anyone adopted anything new, and by that I mean, completely tossed FCP Legend and started over from scratch?
You mentioned red herrings and brought another open up, I could easily say that many haven’t moved to Avid or Adobe, just as easily as I could say that many haven’t moved to FCPX. Many people haven’t moved from FCP Legend quite yet.
“I can take that – its a sort of a straw man argument anyway – any movement from FCP, that there has been, has been to either Avid say in the case of Mark Raudonis or Premiere in the case of Associated Press’s entire editing operation, there has been absolutely no moves of any significance towards FCPX.
Also FCPX is not comparable as an option to either of them, its a weirdo, non-standard piece of kit, relying heavily on imovie originated metaphors that bears no comparison to its predecessor or its two main competitors. Avid has a sizeable long standing installed base, and premiere basically gets called FCP8 quite often – its not really true, but its not far off either.
there is no standing skills base for FCPX, and it ignores a wide number of standing conventions.
I brought up the comparison to Motion because Motion never went anywhere, it never appeared on jobs boards, and no one ever bothered putting it on their CVs – it was just motion in the suite. With motion Apple rejected a lot of existing practise and threw in all kinds of stuff like behaviours and so on. They said it was going to revolutionise motion graphics. It didn’t. it was completely ignored.
I say FCPX is Motion. Its completely non-standard, its got simplified operations and a weird methodology, on top of that it has received hideous press, and while I know I’m vocal at it on this forum, it is pretty broadly disliked software. Hence all those stories at release about “editing world explodes in disgust at bloody awful software, shakes fist at apple”
more fundamentally I return to my basic point – this software lacks friends.
Its broadly disliked, has shown zero market penetration (one BBC magazine editor doth not a spring make), it never appears in jobs listings, whereas as FCP7, Avid, and now quite regularly Premiere 6 do.
It’s toast. I’m calling it a bit early, but we’ll know for certain within this year if its formally dead in the market – or at least as dead as say vegas, or edius. Quite a few editors cut quietly on vegas, tout its realtime abilities, but the point is no one cares.
It’s going to be like that for FCPX pretty soon – no one is really going to care, because there is no reason to.
Guys boosting it like Bill and craig will be like guys boosting Edius.I think apple is permanently out of the mainstream of editing. software too weird, software too stupid.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
the point stands:
editing is not reading, it is not gardening, it is not embroidery.
Editing is a highly competitive paid pursuit.
No one pays you to edit with FCPX. Outside of mathematical rounding errors, no facility offers FCPX to clients. FCPX is completely non-existent editing software.
Its just a weird, one off appstore cash grab by apple.
this isn’t a coincidence, or a blip, this is software going about as far as motion, and that never went anywhere.
the people in the big shops, who only ever tolerated FCP6-7 – they have dumped the whole thing.
they’ve gone back to avid.
the little people, – read; a lot of us – who were getting inroads via FCP – would never touch FCPX because (A) it’s stupid software (B) it killed the entire FCP gig and (C) it proves apple are gone beyond the pale as someone you could ever be stupid enough to trust in the medium term.
FCPX is on the whole, pretty horribly confused software, and it has no friends, in any direction. none.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Craig Seeman] “They’ve chosen to remain the NLE business and continue with Desktops obviously.”
not even a little bit obvious – either part of that sentence. the macpro has a vague promise for something next year.
As for FCPX , lets grind up the organ again – apple chose to be in the monetisation of its undifferentiated users business through the appstore. they originally, and specifically pitched this 299 software, like a canon rebel, at prosumers. the original ads all pitched at imovie users. there was no grand plan, they just went for a buck on something that earns them a decimal point in earnings either way.
FCPX has no professional presence, no moves, bar three outliers apple could cobble together, are underway in its direction, indeed all moves have been like Raudonis towards Avid, or AP and other large iron centres, towards premiere.
FCPX, a year and a half in, has all the industry presence of its effects backbone motion. motion that no one ever cared about outside of ripple training.
Which is to say, utterly none.
No clients request it, it appears on no jobs boards, it features in no post houses, in a schrodinger’s cat sense, if it wasn’t discussed to the extent that it is on this forum, it might as well not exist as a means to be paid to edit.
And – this is most critical – in its dark early days – who championed FCP?
US.
Who rather hates this imovie derived cheap, timeline mess of a product pitch to anyone that ever messed with imovie?
90% of us. the industry from big iron, to the smallest shop rather hates this software.
It is rejected en masse as far as the eye can see.
I do like to take a crowbar to this software, but that is true – FCPX is utterly rejected by precisely the people who brought its predecessor to prominence, because it is an irritating, intellectually reductive, detestable prosumer mess.
FCPX does not have enough friends to survive.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
according to a chinese thread the imac is on the way and thinner with a laminated panel thing, also a bit more expensive.
for about the fifth time I’ve backed out of picking up an i7 iMac – this one six months old, business off-sale stacked to the SSD ram eyebrows, because I can’t help feeling the 2 GB card is a little dead weight given my increasing gravitation to PPro 6. As i read it, it’s uncertain how far adobe going to reach back with the openCL stuff.
I rather intensely wonder if apple will continue the run in the mbp, and give this iMac nvidia, no one is calling it on the chinese pics yet.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
I’m not inferring it steve – I’m directly saying it. And I’m right too.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
class – thats a brilliant work flow description craig – properly publicly informative, any edit system aside. also, it is **god help me** hard not to dig film strip on a fat second monitor. It really is.
pluck your eyebrows slattery, because that is a better apple sell workflow narrative than at least one out of three currently on the apple site. It also features the consonants ‘B’ ‘B’ and ‘C’.
they appear to take nice workplace photos for their pieces.
I completely get (and quite a bit better now) the deeply useful cognitive run throughs apple have made in assembly for long form – what with increasingly out of control ratios of file based media input.
I don’t do much long form at all, but the last time was insane with the volume of material.there would have been a time when leaving the source clip as an unintelligible moniker would be unimaginable?
Its honestly interesting to consider that apple are providing a scenario that actually can, with filmstrip, skimming and tagging, allow the editor to hop skip and jump over formal clip by clip source viewer interrogation, naming and item categorisation – that with the rather ridiculous speed of footage interrogation and tagging, they’ve constructed a semantic pool staging area instead…
…given that uncontrolled ratio input and collapsed turnaround times are making that formal item/source viewing step nearly untenable?
Still…
curmudgeon – don’t personally like it for my own short form commercial malarky tho.
SURPRISE.
– the kind of heft and movability apple are providing you, which they worked hard to derive, are a mess in short form and other scenarios where time is not quite such an issue, and the short circuit footage pool is not as desirable.
they’ve also short circuited a lot of basic timeline process to get there, and outside of optimised scenarios, it feels like a car on weird, if fast, automatic with large signs to direct work process.It very much feels like an editor designed to do certain specific things and reward certain specific scenarios?
I find, (as bloody ever said everyone), that apple fundamentally fail to provide a basic universal canvas for an appraisal of what editing can be – they pre-judged and tooled it for a highly defined scenario that i find reductive. even if it is brilliant in that context.
I’ll ask you it this way – given all the inputs you had craig, all the inferences that bled in to your skillset, that allow you to formulate FCPX behaviours to your liking, would you feel comfortable with all future editors blindly knowing nothing but the primary and secondary metaphor shortcuts? all pre-connected with default ripple?
In an apocalyptic scenario – if you had to pick one editing system to retain, to pass on a fundamental cognitive landscape to represent the infinite possibilities of time based editing – would you pick FCPX?
no, of course you wouldn’t – that would be insanity.
I can feel you nodding in agreement already 😉
lets all go to PPro 6 (or avid) and protect the grammatical fundamentals of editing, and probably civilisation.
I thank you, try the veal.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Bill Davis] “it’s an increasingly uncommon one. “
thats hard to buy. FCPX is still, outside of this noise chamber, and three aging cited cases on apple, a dead industry fish.
editing requires payment. and no one habitually pays for FCPX.
it is not editing software, because it does not describe editing as a means to payment by third party.In the UK it never ever appears on production base, it is not on mandy worldwide where I have a google alert, none of the post houses are running it.
none of them bill. I’m comfortable making that statement and open to a counter.
FCPX has exactly one more big overhaul shot before it becomes about as important as vegas.
that’s it Bill. After that you are, as it were, tinkering with it in the garage.
Apple have exactly one more do over, (which I personally half think they will ignore) –
But I honestly think FCPX is aperture soon to be – and god knows aperture is a half dead prosumer mess of what it was – killed at market by adobe, and still sitting like a zombie on the appstore for thirty quid, ladled with iphoto baubles.
Apple are not a company to be trusted to produce and iterate professional market software over a five or three year horizon.
Simple as that.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
hey thats fair ball – do you want to maybe expand on how you use the primary? whats your approach given the serious differences to established NLEs?
I get that it’s good for robustly and quickly structuring factual, that appears to be one of its primary goals – but I find it simply infuriating for short form and commercial myself – the overlaying of modalities and the default behaviour of the timeline with autolinking feels seriously over thought –
my b*tching aside –do you want to give an indication to the manner in which you handle the programme segments in ingest, organisation and timeline versus your previous editor? genuinely curious – figure that would probably be pretty broadly interesting read as it were.
also do you approach geometrics for shot push pulls in FCPX as well as CC stuff?https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics