[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Craig Seeman] “I think Larry is referring to the project Mestman is about to start. “

nope. he’s not.

For starters, there is no editor and prod crew for him to talk to about why they made the decision, in the past, to adopt X – when in the article mestman makes it clear that he is basically taking a meeting in NY to discuss X’s involvement on another film in the future.

Larry is referring to the 100 million dollar production that mestmans article refers to – they both cite that it isn’t officially named yet and everything, Larry makes a gag about it at the supermeet – larry also refers to the fact that there was a long run up to the decision to nominate X – again – mestman clearly stated that he was going to attend an initial meeting about another film in a couple of weeks. not six months ago.

i don’t see how larry can be talking about the film mestman is in preliminary talks about, when he’s talking about decisions made to employ X six months ago.

there kind of is no getting around it craig. you can only think that larry jordan was weirdly mis-informed about X’s role in the production, such that he repeatedly referred to it as the nominated editing system for post production on the mystery 100 million dollar film from one of the hollywood majors.

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Chris Harlan] ” But this thread is basically calling him a liar “

that is incorrect – I think he is, perhaps inadvertently mis-representing FCPX’s role in that production – it is clear from the original article that X is being used to cut epk’s. larry relies pretty heavily on it as an example of X working with the big boys, and he seems to, pretty clearly, represent it as being the editing system cutting that feature, he refers to it a number of times in that fashion, he also says he spoke directly to the editor for that feature, and that the editor outlined to him the reasoning behind picking it – I just think its weird that the editor didn’t finish that sentence with “picking it to cut below the line marketing materials.”

I think a lot of people have been pretty keen for a Coen brothers moment for X – and I don’t doubt its coming. I just think it would be possible to walk away with the impression that X is cutting that 100 million dollar mystery feature from an unnamed big six studio – when, reading mestman’s article, it seems pretty clear its not?

all so confusing…

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Craig Seeman] Larry Jordan: “Sam is currently working on an unannounced feature film with about a $100 million production budget. The producers, director and editorial team spent six months researching what software to use for post-production. They choose Final Cut Pro X, because of some of the tools I’ll show you later in this presentation.

So he did talk to Mestman and this is not the EPK setups Mestman wrote about in the FCPCO article.
“

Not to beat a dead horse here but Larry is referring to exactly the same production that mestman outlines at fcp.co. It is the EPK job. they are both talking about exactly the same job. A job where FCPX is – specifically – assigned to cut the EPK material for that $100 million dollar production in process?
Its producing below the line marketing materials. Its not being used to edit the film. read Larry’s line again:

“an unannounced feature film with about a $100 million production budget. The producers, director and editorial team spent six months researching what software to use for post-production.”

tell me that doesn’t read as X being nominated as the editing platform for that film.

Mestman again:

…“your system [FCPX] is immediately going to be put to use editing EPKs for a major motion picture, and eventually handle editorial for that studio’s films moving forward.”
the real part of that sentence is what FCPX is assigned to do on that production: cut EPKs, marketing materials.

Now tell me that reading Larry’s take on it isn’t quite likely to make you draw the conclusion that X is cutting that film.

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

Yes but Craig, according to Mestman he’s already got a commitment from the Bulgaria 100 million dollar shooting major six Studio that FCPX will:
“…eventually handle editorial for that studio’s films moving forward.”

Forget one film Craig – Mestman already has one of the major six movie studios fundamentally editorially committed to X for its studio output going forward.

I look forward to this bombshell hitting Variety imminently.

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

Foggy nothing – he refers back to X and cutting 100 million dollar films later on towards the close too – if Jordan spoke to mestman and the films editor, its hard to understand how he didn’t know the film was not being cut on X.

One other point – in the original Mestman quote he states that eventually all that studios features would be cut on X going forward – presumably now based on its performance as a below the line EPK cutter in bulgaria – Larry Jordan then clarifies it to say that they are talking about one of the big six Hollywood studios. the quote goes –

“and eventually handle editorial for that studio’s films moving forward.”

So – the real headline here should surely be “FOX/Paramount/Warners enters into formal roadmap to somehow insist to various directors and editors that eventually all this studios films will be cut on FCPX”

that is, if this is all completely on the level. Which I’m sure it totally is – maybe Mestman can pop in clear up FCPXs role, Larry’s understanding of it, and the studios commitment to it as “their” editing system going forward.

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

I just re-watched it – he says cutting a 100 million dollar feature. “A new feature, after six months testing they decided to go with FCPX…” then he says “I spoke to the film’s editor and he spoke to me about why they decided to go with FCPX because of the utilities available for it”

I find it odd that Larry had that conversation with the film’s editor, because Mestman acknowledges himself that X is not cutting this 100 million dollar feature in his own article. It is cutting EPKs.

Larry never mentions the fact that its not cutting the feature – Mestman gets rid of that point in a sentence too. mestman was not sent in there to prep the film’s edit infrastructure, he was sent in there to prep the EPK BTS below the line stuff setup – that’s a completely different ballpark, with a different assigned budget. It’s perfect for X as an inexpensive, powerful, fast turnaround tool.

It may sound carpy on my part, but there seems to be some wilful misinterpretation going on. It’s not a knock on X – he demo’s some great features later.

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Jeremy Garchow] “floating windows should be damned to floating hell.”

honestly? you think single brick interfaces are the way forward?

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

If Ive remains in charge of human user interface design – and who thinks he isn’t going to – given what he represents to the company they can’t take that back, it’s hard not to see skeuomorphism, right down to all glows, bevels and drop shadows getting exterminated – apple will have to back this across the line – if they don’t, they can’t expect third parties to. My iphone is overloaded with updates to toe the iOS line.

You’d have to figure this new iOS is going to come “back to the mac” just like previous elements did with Lion?
There was a greater financial risk to apple pulling the design rug out from under iOS than there is doing the same with OSX?
iOS is basically the premier operating system in revenue terms. There’s no way Apple aren’t going to enforce the aesthetic logic through every last inch of OSX over time. Every screen and default app in an apple store in 18 months probably has to look like a really nice cousin of iOS – presumably that means farewell to the 3D dock, the 3D bin, all that stuff getting dumped. among other things. It has to. Otherwise they’re not really backing it – goes to FCPX and the other Apple sold apps too you’d have to reckon.

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Dan Stewart] “a 2perf 35mm that sounds like a lawnmower but reams the Alexa in every available port.”

so that’s a great sentence.

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Oliver Peters] “[Charlie Austin] “How X is built as an asset manager that has a timeline VS a timeline that has an asset manager.””

but isn’t it bananas interesting that that was the point always made about avid? or at least by certain bods in london? That FCP classic and Avid were an inverse? One had a lousy managed backend with a beloved open editor timeline, and the other had a perceived lousy front end with basically matchless asset management?

What apple choose to do, right now, with their primary editing timeline environment is entirely up to them – but anyone would be lying if they didn’t admit to repeatedly looking at the asset organisation and tagging of that system. There’s no way that people aren’t. It’s also maybe quite hard to replicate if it takes hold? It’s a question of how hard apple want to defend the rest of the original, say brave, timeline thesis.

you’d have to think there is some kind of middle ground. there is a sea that is barely still moved from seven. Corpo seems to have woken up to the fact that as adobe license holders, they can now be, with premiere, basically edit ready for kind of nothing.
but, if true, and i really did hear it two separate times – one large post, one huge broadcast – the enterprise adobe CC deal offerings are apparently muddying that water like hell right now. Including with previously poster early adopters at large scale. Months’ delaying intractable negotiations type thing both times. Weirdly similar tbh.

bar shilling for creative cloud FUD here, you might suspect adobe are hitting some problems. the tuesday investor guidance is meant to be bad.

so.. everyone ponder the next X release, and then maybe go post in the CC debate forum and freak them out please. We are offering free hot dogs.

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