Aindreas Gallagher
Forum Replies Created
-
I’m going to tell Robert Wise you said that, and he is going to get up out of his grave and find out where you live.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Andrew Richards] “Which editing rules and terminology that is common to the editing of those four films (which were produced many decades apart from each other) have Apple’s software engineers changed?”
well this post from a commercials editor guy:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/296/15880?wfid=335&wpid=12772
and david lawrence’s reply…
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/296/15887?wfid=335&wpid=12772
…pretty much sums it up for me – I’ve done timelines like that – they are the timelines apple derided in the presentation. But that is a professional timeline, I can read that very easily, so can you. If I walked up to that timeline and started receiving updated assets, I’d be pretty much fine. It looks complicated, but it’s not. Or well.. not to a, god forgive me for saying it.. professional anyway. Its an open, absolute timeline. There is no primary storyline, or secondary storyline, or auditions rippling things up and down – its the timeline. That’s what existed before. That what every editor up to Murch and beyond had. An absolute, open multitrack timeline you placed elements into.
Apple have seen fit to replace all that with the primary storyline, secondary storyline, connected clips malarky. look at that timeline the guy posted, it’s powerful, malleable, reads like a sheet of music – but there is, in no way, a primary storyline there. Many work usage situations will produce something that is sympathetic to primary, secondary, connected metaphors – but many will not – the beauty of an open, multitrack absolute timeline is that it can encompass all approaches.
nipping into italics for a minute:
No wonder Apple can’t get FCP7 timelines into FCPX – their reduced, simplified editing paradigm cannot conceive of, or allow, a wide, wide range of professional open editing timeline practises.
that’s what we’ve lost.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
he is… very pro the software tho.. – don’t get me wrong: I think professionals the likes of him are right to push back whatnot – and he is honest and bullish in his appreciation for the software, but he glides over an awful lot of things – small example – when he skims past the quicktime and audio export options he says “exactly the same” …well, nothing could be further from the truth really.
Mind you that is probably a very temporary issue. It is kind of fun seeing someone go all churchill defending it tho.http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
yeah, they had the 844X and a lightworks offline – I were the first one to order FCP into the station in 2002 at version 3 for the graphics department.. had it on a blue and white G3 with 5 or 10 gigs of external scsi, I think it was, AE 4.1 running on the ICEboard. that card was huuuge. I loved every single plugin with it. The colour ramp plugin it came with was savage. But there were so many extension conflicts it took three days of trial and error to get a working set, well two – one for video editing and one for everything else.
Conflict extensions – man, now they were crazy. I do not miss them at allll.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Craig Seeman] “Autodesk (Discreet) like Edit*, Cleaner, Combustion? “
well.. yeah. I still argue that Apple is a different, more dangerous crazy.
on combustion – remember paint and effect before it? you could paint on 3DSMAX models as displacement maps with it?
annnd before that it was illuminaire paint? from denim software? we bought that package back in my old station in 98. I remember the box arriving. animatable vector based paint tools. I thought that was amazingly cool.
Our engineers also later plunked a pile of cash down on 844X as the main online.
They also bought an *edit. We didn’t have much luck.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Bill Davis] “none of us can make FCP-X into what WE want it to be. It’s Apple’s ballgame. “
oh lord bill, but you kill me.
that, I swear to god, is a truly, truly stupid statement.
[Bill Davis] “I’m mindful that when I post here, I’m leaving a permanent record – and being dismissive of the PEOPLE who disagree.. etc etc etc a dash more CAPS, four more paragraphs, etc etc etc”
and I close with a quote:
“I don’t know why I am being quoted” – unnamed Irish supreme court judge.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
I.. dunno craig – one bullet – two wildly divergent targets.
ten years of a user base. And they build this thing. I just can’t buy the rationale, or the motive.
in shoe drop, thought experiment terms: what happens when (hypothetical) they buy 3DSMAX, Softimage, the autodesk line of flame smoke etc?
What happens to those software entities then? How much can the craft actually stand apple’s presence?
what happens to critical professional software? What do they do to it?Apple’s godly perception of the market, what it means in their eyes, and what it means for the people pursuing that market as a livelihood is gone weird.
We are not, all of us, simply in a financial software skills petri dish of their making, to be mixed up in some future pot skills bunsen burner – there is some real stuff here.Apple are gone a bit weird and they will, it appears, do just about anything that comes into their heads. Anything. Industry, craft or livelihood bedamned.
sorry – I’m back to greatest hits rants, but really: how can you trust this company? they’re poking an entire craft with sticks to find fresh money.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Craig Seeman] “I think your bullet analogy has merit. It doesn’t quite hit either target but I think Apple’s aim will improve on hitting both targets though.”
(I cherry picked that quote and then some…)
I think apple know how to fashion really incredible software bullets, but the idea that they can fashion a single bullet to hit these two targets is sheer madness.
the two target minds have radically different levels of comprehensibility when it comes to editing – so apple have to allow for operability from a casual, easily confounded user and at the same time answer the needs of ten plus year editing pros?
You cannot have all levels of operation from the most casual to multi-decade professional contained within the one product.
that product cannot be made. there is no way to fashion it.although god knows, we really are looking at the attempt.
on the camera analogy – it’s like asking canon to collapse their offerings into a single camera that can function as a mission critical professional dslr, while also being capable of being picked up and operated as an enhanced point and shoot for someone vaguely conversant with cameras.
Companies have product ranges with gradations of complexity for a reason.It doesn’t matter how brilliantly you think about it, or how brilliantly you execute it – this single bullet simply cannot work. The attempt asks the wrong questions and sets the wrong task. You end up with FCPX.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Craig Seeman] “Far too many FCPX features are not geared towards “average consumer.” It’s missing many higher end features but there are quite a few already included. I doubt the “average consumer” has the need for the quality scopes included. Most “consumers” have no use for 4K resolution support either. Subframe audio editing is also something that most “consumer” wouldn’t use. “Consumers” certainly don’t need the detailed implementation of metadata support.
“yessss – but. doesn’t all that, taken along with the – hold it with mittens, don’t detach the audio – prosumer nature of the timeline, starting at 0 with no bars, no video out.. doesn’t that simply mean that apple fired a bullet that they hoped to hit two targets with five hundred yards apart?
I mean isn’t that the point? it’s a schizophrenic software release. one piece of softwware cannot simultaneously be both a successful prosumer/consumer product and also a truly professional product. That just can’t realistically happen.
Gruber had it right in the talk show – in apple’s new lingo – pro simply means a souped up version of the consumer product. it happened to aperture, and it just happened, radically, to final cut pro.
we were always going to get the yellow bounding box – thor could not have stopped that – because that is what imovie on the iphone, the ipad and the desktop have – we will never have core paradigms that exist outside of their consumer software. and that is problematic.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
Damn you man, you are. just. too. reasonable.
I think Larry was referring to the longer term NDA beta testers? Threes months is no time to change anything really.
And yes. The dot releases are sure going to be the answer to all of this. We’re all just hanging around kicking stones in the meantime.Here’s a fun question – do we think the dot releases will be beta tested? As you say 10.1 is a full release that’s probably a year out, but what about 10.0.1 or 10.0.7, when does beta testing crank back up? Are they talking to their original NDA beta testers already? Oh that’s right – NDA.
Still – they do have some alternate timelines lying around:
https://alex4d.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/timeline_different.jpg
There’s a lot less chrome there too.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics