[Aindreas Gallagher]

you would pick a company, utterly focused on tablets, a slightly smaller tablet, phones, music sales, media sales, televisions(?), television boxes, laptops and the retail sales for all these things within its retail stores numbering in the hundreds –

– over a company of thirty years standing that owes its entire existence, uninterrupted, to the patronage of print design, media, online and video editing professionals?

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Oliver Peters] “The real issue is sharing sequences between editors.”

I’m boosting PPro 6 in a bloodthirsty fashion, (although I do feel it looks right) – the current after effects style, one project at a time, and all the file problems associated with that, gives me a little pause – still – are we going to talk at all about the adobe anywhere demo? Isn’t that a gigantic shoe dropping? in 6-9 months?

devil’s advocate Oliver: if you had to pick an editing platform over a three year horizon, given the two companies behaviour – would you pick PPro, or FCPX?

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Shane Ross] “If he’s going to tell us what editing app he’s going to use and endorse…let me figure out what camera I think is the best option and endorse it.”

come on – I love the bloom. His Blackmagic camera review was a sweet watch, and he strikes you as a natural grok for editing. Sky and beyond, he’s been swimming in the stuff for years. its exposure largely isn’t it?

my point is that I share, and in viewing it, shared his basic perception of the software – it feels, in the timeline particularly, and in the bins, and in the surrounding software, that adobe have, in a highly compressed competitive scenario, produced a working fundamental grasp of current editing. I buy PPro 6 – I liked it so much I bought the suite, said remington. don’t ask me what I was doing before.

Adobe thought hard here, they produced jkl trimming that – as far as I get it, and its nice to play with – matches a key strength of avid, but more than that – I simply buy that adobe are in no way messing around here. they view this as a brass ring moment, and we are their audience. their only audience.

Back when this was a true rant town, I said that it is better that there be three competitors rather than two. Bottom line is that it was really important that
Adobe internalise the opportunity and produce a workable way forward.

Apple are in some sense trying to refashion their offering, but it is simply too weird. It’s a programmer’s esperanto of editing, filled with tags, primary storylines, the occasional need to evacuate all editing to the secondary, a square colour corrector – its just a ludicrous editing system. Its a bomb site.

given the navel gazing, egocentric, belly flop for the ages recently provided to us by apple’s software engineers, it’s as well we have a functioning, non-hardware tied editing software solution to stand with avid.

Again – given Apple’s utterly ridiculous, ego driven implosion, if Adobe hadn’t gotten it together – there would be, as they say, only one.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Aindreas Gallagher]

no way really? its the one tiny gui gripe i have – I find them a little too harshly red and yellow, and a little too big.

I can tweak these to my hearts content in PS? oh be still my beating heart.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Aindreas Gallagher]

and the adobe ink –

https://blogs.adobe.com/kevinmonahan/2012/09/20/smaller-premiere-pro-cs6-trim-tool-icons/

Honestly – it’s a lovely link, it shows true confidence in the audience, fallon style but – to any old editor at all – why not really, really read this.

and have a hard think through about apple as an editing software vendor going forward. as they say.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Aindreas Gallagher]

my irritation resides with FCPX.

the upper left of the FCPX GUI is an editors bomb site of exposed mounted drives, tags, favourites, keyword collections and filmstrips.

The point is however – that the above use scenario can be, in a consumer use case, an utterly simple paradigm – and yet still horribly reductive for us.

Apple are simultaneously introducing useless complexities (roles), and still busily bleeding in stupidity, such that they can see uniform behaviour across all of those using their editing paradigm under their sun. Editing may as well be as proprietary as maps.

Apple are the very very worst here. the arts and technology crossroads they are looking to straddle is a devils crossroad.

we need to walk away from this. quickly.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Aindreas Gallagher]

late jumping in, sorry if this has been covered – so think of prelude like first cut say?

…if we want to get really meta about the choice steve made when ubillos showed him first cut – the original architecture for what became the imovie/fcpx architecture.

it is documented that Ubillos originally envisioned a lightroom style pre-stage to FCP (that being photoshop), which is what he presented – hence the non-narrative cascading bunching of clips that drove the imovie users of the time mad – but steve jobs decided the insights presented by Ubillos were broader in application.

god knows jobs could leap into puddles though right? but in the long and the short – that presentation, which I would argue was proper on ubillos’s part and a fundamental error on Jobs’s part – lead to a pre-stage organising mechanism being imploded directly into the creative main stage of the editing ground space.

If we want proof of this we need look no further than the fact that ubillos, when deriving all of the main elements – drive libraries, tagging, filmstrips within a single viewer, which are all on record as the elements of the first cut demo that Jobs re-directed into imovie – when ubillos devised all this architecture, he never intended it to be a mainstage FCP editing area. Let alone imovie.

I rather feel this point is overlooked. Ubillos walked in with one thing, and via Jobs – we all, over time and inertia, got another.

it is a continuous elbow twitch for me with FCPX – its beautifully put together, in a certain sense, it has colour correction capabilities in the area of masking that makes lumps out of every other editing system out there, and bar tracking, matches every high end colour correction system out there without exception (ok b-splines but whatever) –
the responsiveness of the masking and effects architecture on consumer hardware at 1080P is outright surreal – still – in the upper left hand corner I have a headache of compaction, where I am presented with OS level drives, twirl down menus to see the tags, filmstrips, and sweet god knows what else – it is simply too much noise up there.

that pre-stage, exactly as adobe has it with prelude…

….has instead become the final intellectual collapse of Ubiloss’s first cut?
a ludicrously cramped area comprising events, OS drives, tags, favourite viewer, filmstrips – a single bin viewer mess – and this mashed potato mess is actually supposed to be the composed editing staging area for your determined FCPX timeline?

that aside – don’t get me started on the everliving joke that is the mangled, 3D whacky style filmstrip view A/B trimming, auto-linking, auto rippling mess that is that idiot’s preferred idiot of all time timeline.

——————————–

*better vendor message*

in other news – hey! – adobe are quietly posting (themselves) a nice third party hack to fractionally reduce the onscreen GUI size of their excellent timeline trimming tools.

I’m not joking, they really did. I swear – they are an editor’s editor as a vendor.

Prelude is really rather nice, and very trustworthy. it certifies a transcode, which I half love. Adobe PPro 6 is, with flaws, (would you like to import that other project?) an excellent, highly focused editing system, developing at warp speed. Adobe want this very much.

And in Adobe’s case the “this” is unequivocally monetarily focused on the professional user.

Adobe do not sell phones.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Aindreas Gallagher]

lucasfilm edit droid stories with a pint?

my bar tab lawrence.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Jeremy Garchow] “If you don’t want things connected, edit in the Primary, It is really that simple. “

doesn’t that mean you are reduced to a V1 application? Isn’t that insane?

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Aindreas Gallagher]

the kick is, its also true oliver – we are supposed to approach material in the context of a really, really blank canvas.

https://manhattaneditworkshop.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/editfest-ny-2012-milton-ginsberg.html

the fascinating point in that video is that editing can imbue true – and transportive – meaning.

it is less likely to do so if cupertino is allowed to make a reductive lego play-set from its dis-assembled, and falsely joined parts.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics