Aindreas Gallagher
Forum Replies Created
-
neXt was a quite an amazing software platform too no? youtube watching jobs demo and delineate the market at the time is a really, really nice way to kill time.
It’s mid-bottle vintage jobs.http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
I’m not sure I understand, what has the controversial nature of the release have to do with the API’s being MIA?
The API’s had to have been in development throughout the course of development. When apple released the statement, they said weeks, and well, its months.
Why are we putting the delays down to the controversial reaction to the software release?
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
well yes sure, but a lot of the stuff a lot of people think is very wrong with this software would have been the same even if they had held off to quash the rampant bugs.
It would be interesting to know what they think of the sales and usage of this thing internally – whether they will feel in hindsight that they did in fact get it strategically wrong.
If as you say this software is a driver for hardware – which being OSX only, it certainly is – if the prosumer market say, aren’t biting in anything like the volume they might have hoped, well, then, it would be pretty interesting to see if Apple, in the updates to november, are going to give some feature re-introduction sops to the hardware market they had locked up before this whole mess started…. a re-introduction of some noteworthy element or other from FCP7, maybe not the source monitor, but something?
that would be a signal. And well, a total lack of what I’ve described would be a bit of a signal too mind you.http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Craig Seeman] ”
I agree but there’s a lot of people complaining that it’s been nearly three months than nothing. Someone hypocritical when people complain FCPX was released “unfinished” and then they complain that Apple doesn’t rush out an update.Of course if Apple had waited until early 2012 to get out a more feature complete FCPX, they’d be complaining about how Apple doesn’t care about the “pros” because they’re taking too long.
“you’ve kind of got their back covered in both directions there craig.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Dave LaRonde] “Can anyone with more patience than I have, or someone with more compassion for those suffering from ADHD that I apparently possess, kindly summarize what this genius has to say about FCX?”
not a gigantic amount? He doesn’t like it tho – the funny thing is – he’s well aware of imovie – thats his first reaction, that its imovie pro.
that’s what annoying him, the software that he’s familiar with as imovie being the new FCP is his point of irritation.Which really rather raises an interesting question about whether or not ubillos’s redesign of imovie ever truly gained traction in the mindset of casual mac users.
If apple in fact, spurning research, somewhat imagined an unexplored, larger base of imovie snowboarders.Apple may have gotten the entire thing wrong because the whole point of this was a bait and switch where they drag just enough of a reluctant broadcast market, and simultaneously explode the imovie base.
the professional base is currently urinating on this software from a height of clouds, and if this guy’s anything like the anecdotal truth, then apple may have completely miscalculated this entire thing.
Which means they may have burned the entire decade’s worth of an editing software base for nothing in the end, if, in fact, the new entrant base fizzles and dies. No facility I know of is purchasing a single FCPX license. I’ve ranted this fact in the past, but it keeps being true as a mortal lock.
not that I think any of this will leave them red eyed with terror and fatigue in cupertino. this whole situation is the smallest, smallest cheese.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
after about thirty seconds, he became fantastically annoying.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
oh god I love that timeline. looks, just look at the usable audio waveforms.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
quite.
It is very hard to ignore that adobe lives or dies by the purchasing decisions of its designers, motion graphic artists, or, let’s all hear it for premiere 6 now, editors.
that said, apparently adobe makes tons in enterprise, but… at least we’re not a decimal point in the company’s profits.
on a basic level, adobe needs its software releases to be accepted by its current customers. Apple has no such difficulty.
Apple will happily mangle or terminate professional software for fun these days.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
ye are both in a deeply jesuitical conversation here.
two cents – if I have a messy as hell FCP7 timeline, if I have three clips on V6 with transition between them, a space, then a bunch more clips, a few solids above, and a mess of stuff below relating to alternate editing decisions below, and then some more traditional V1 V2 interview with b-roll stuff going on..
what is FCPX going to do? given where the stuff with dissolves is its going to have to designate secondary story line, to retain the dissolves, but there are orphans clips everywhere below – presumably then FCPX is going to try and thread down vertically to create connected clips, tunnelling down to the holy primary on V1, but what if it encounters more clip dissolves on the way down?
better again – what if I have slipped audio on the b-roll to get clinks or bird song nats in where i want them? what happens to that audio? Does it get exploded out of the secondary storyline or the connected clip? how?
the point surely is not that the software is intelligent – far from it, rather the point is that a basic software translation of assets is made incredibly more difficult when the dumb software is called upon to sort a timeline created in an entirely freeform editing environment into the large number of strict arbitrary rules of FCPX. I can’t have a dissolve here? excuse me? it has to be what? a secondary what now?
To repeat – I do believe that very soon after the AXEL specifications are published we will have the ability to import sympathetically arranged FCP7 timelines into FCPX. there will be rules easily understood as to where clips can or cannot be. To the extent that retaining dissolves will require thought.
Walter’s point is sound however – Apple were simply not willing to release such a hobbled set of instructions, because the timeline they built would break a large portion of in process, multilayer timelines. I find it very easy to imagine a number of really messy outcomes. I imagine that they didn’t have to imagine it. they tested it and refused to release it under their banner.
We’ll still get stuff in, and probably fairly painlessly with some nous, but the demand for intent in the vertical relationship and the machine translation problems that presents with incoming FCP7 timelines is, as Walter outlines it, significant.
Apple don’t do messy, so, after washing their hands, they dropped us.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
yeah, but sure, come on though – 1V 2A – how hard is that? that’s like a bunch of shots one after the other. there are no relationships or intents, that’s start with the first clip, add the other clips in sequence on the primary storyline until you come to the last one.
I bet you twenty quid once apple (if they ever do at this rate) publish the specifications, that is out, commercially, in a fortnight.you have to be able to get 1V 2A in there. you have to. or the world is mad.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics