Aindreas Gallagher
Forum Replies Created
-
yes, he said, scrabbling for google… I.. do like me a good arpeggiator I do.
You posted on music stuff before way back – you really do rather know that stuff don’t you?
[Craig Seeman] ”
Make the Ken Burns button as sophisticated as a good motion control camera and make it worthy of the name which I wouldn’t mind under those circumstances.
“indeed, although well this is weird where we find ourselves placed on the argument…
connected clips say – much of the metaphor of the timeline drives me nuts as a restrictive conceptual shortcut… but well, then look at me saying ken burns could be ok. It’s because the ken burns is peripheral to my concerns or something. I think its broadly ok.
It’s control – this whole thing comes back to control doesn’t it? it threads through the entirety of this dispute I rather think, he said, shifting his arse on the FCPX debate left side stool…http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
mmmmm.
Where’s your derision for the people saying that Apple isn’t planning on adding multicam back in, or any true “professional” features because they are only interested in making gadgets and toys? You know, the vast majority of posters. There is as much truth to any of that as there is to those saying that FCPX will have all the pro features back by the end of the year.
you’re still saying that he should apportion equal derision to those who say that apple isn’t planning to add multicam back in, as he should to those on the other side who say that FCPX will be restored to professional health by the end of the year.
as you say: “Where’s your derision for the people saying that Apple isn’t planning on adding multicam back in..?”
he can’t have derision for them – they don’t exist.
the point is that when you posit the multicam statement, you’re using it as an example of ludicrous statements which he chooses to ignore from his own end. You’re not positing it as a false exmple used by the other side – in effect – you sort of became the other side positing false arguments when you said it. Nobody has said multicam is not coming back in.
And now, continuing my voyage of pretending to know argument lore, I will read from a cookbook backwards..
By and large I agree with what you’re saying, but lets face it, at this point nearly everyone in this forum is knee deep in mud, covered in dry clay, throwing wide punches, breathing heavily and thinking long and hard about a hot shower and a cup of coffee. the cow just had to rename this forum into a one off editors panel episode of the jerry springer show after all…
we may all be beyond redemption.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
erm, I usually froth at the mouth on any given topic, but I think I’m ok with this? If I was hard pressed editor chappie zooming in and out of civil war photos while the narrator drones on, I might be ok with the provision of this option? its pretty much akin to applying a motion behaviour… sort of, although I might like the ability to collapse it from its script to generated position scale keyframes to tweak or something. Or I could just build my own transforms as one usually does.
that said, spontaneously vomiting en masse on apple hardware in store as a flashmob, before running out screaming “FCP is dead!!” might be a nice way of sending a message to cupertino.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
well thats all fine but when I say you made a strawman I mean you made this statement:
[Andy Neil] “the people saying that Apple isn’t planning on adding multicam back in, or any true “professional” features because they are only interested in making gadgets and toys?”
the first part …”the people saying that Apple isn’t planning on adding multicam back in..” is an unstated argument, nobody made this point to you or anyone else on this thread, you’re refuting something unstated in order to make the person you are arguing against seem more unreaonable.
then you put it together with this, “….or any true “professional” features because they are only interested in making gadgets and toys?” which is just a vague hyperbolic statement of the other sides illogical thinking as you see it.
so then putting these together you have created a false and invalid position for the person you are arguing against, which you then proceed to knock down in your post.that’s knocking down a strawman. we all do it. I’ve probably done it oodles of times here, but it’s still a strawman, which is pretty invalid as an argued position.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Andy Neil] “the people saying that Apple isn’t planning on adding multicam back in, or any true “professional” features because they are only interested in making gadgets and toys?”
that’s a bit of a strawman.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
-
Steve, I’ve personally largely tailed from the heights of my ranting, but it is noticeable with you buddy, that when people are venting criticisms you jump in railing like hell about their negativity and asking why don’t they just move on. Couching it now in terms of – how dare you you’re damaging the forum and I’m going to speak to Ron about you.. Who are you Steve? You’re just another user of this forum. You are nothing more. I count three people on top of that board who are strong proponents of the software and Simon ubsdell is in and out too.
It’s not your place to start shouting at everyone and wailing at the higher ups because this forum is not the way you want it. The bent of it’s conversation is derived from controversy over the software. Its notable that over the last fortnight it’s been dying down and tech questions are coming in. Your contention, steve, that more normal queries are being jumped on by some anti-FCPX wing is total and utter bull.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
Well, it, FCPX, and it’s dead forebearer FCP7 – that’s a lot of dead software Jeremy, it’s a lot of prior skills, and a lot of dead earth in a limited software field. Nobody is making physical implements akin to cameras for the act of editing. We’re reduced to a software company operating at a loss – avid, then adobe, and some open source.
There have been some incredibly stupid comparisons made to spreadsheets and word processors when it comes to the editing process in FCPX. Phillip hodgetts warbled on about how linked clips were paragraphs. Thats all balls.
The point – surely – is that editing is, irrevocably, a physical process sublimated to software – the cut one makes on h264 is, in the moment, the same as the razor blade on celluloid, one does not requires the link, it is inherent. But apple say for example – shoved in absolute tagging – thereby virtualising the incoming footage and making it in effect a sprite – it doesnt go anywhere, it is replicated like a cloned wart into multiple tags and sections of it are replicated into other multiple tags or even pre-determined smart collections. So Sprites are everywhere. Is the propagation of mirror halls of sprites within keyword collections appropriate to editing source material? Or is it just intellectually lazy regurgitated bullish*t from iTunes and aperture? Don’t get me started on events.
god Jesus but this software is annoying.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
God’s honest truth?
I don’t believe we will have an FCP of any sort 36 months from now. I would lay a fiver.
As the near last professional software man standing in cupertino – editing in apple has… what? two/three years to live?FCPX is a care nothing last gambit to broadly monetise something Apple could give a tupenny damn about.
There won’t be a single – 52 weeks a year occupied – FCP seat left in two years. that I will bet real money on.
Apple are out. They’re gone.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
craig, but for the love of god, leading you into my rant – it would be fine if the ray gun worked, but the ray doesn’t work. you can slam your hand on it and scream at it, but this ray gun doesn’t work. I’d *love* a ray gun, I want to love this ray gun, it’s tantalising, but this ray gun doesn’t work.
it doesn’t work bud.
when a music based edit means you have to flood the storyline with the tune and shift all video off the primary into the arbitrary laws of secondary and compound.. which having tried it is actually true.. it’s lunacy how badly the restrictions of metaphor and action they templated have been thought out.
Apple have intrinsically failed in perceiving the true gamut of editing. they have Craig.
Their imposed metaphors fall over in nearly every direction.This software is incredibly aggressive in conception but – Its storyline metaphors fail in practise, its colour board is a joke, its GUI is too heavy with chrome, its organisation is too restricted to meta-data, allowing no visual spatial organisation of elements (that’s bin windows drag and drop), the locked single window mode is completely inappropriate, the various timecode and audio meter representations are a joke…
this is actually failed software. that’s the worst of it. I wouldn’t mind if it was simply controversial, but its not – this is expensively failed software. Which means its probably like the palm OS within HP. It’s soon to be dead software.
As in – the entire FCP wing of editing is gone.And that was a needless act, given that the patient apple took the knife to was in rude health.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics