Andrew Kimery
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Nope. Not here: https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/in-action/“
Yup.
All you have to do is go to Apple.com, wonder why there is no software icon on the nav bar, click ‘Mac’ because that seems like the next best option, wonder again why there is no software option in the Mac section, click El Cap cause you think maybe they put all the software under the OS X header. Nope, realize you were wrong, click back, look at the nav bar again to make sure you aren’t overlooking it, scroll down the Mac page because now you are getting frustrated and just aimlessly mousing around, stumble upon FCP X near the bottom of the page, click Learn More, click ‘In Action’ up at the top and *bam* there is Focus… and 8 other pieces that I’m pretty sure have been there for at least 3yrs.
How could anyone possibly miss finding the In Action section? 😉
There is cold comfort that it’s not just ProApps that are getting shoved under the bed. If you go to Apple.com the only piece of software that has a permanent, direct link is iTunes (and that’s a link way down at the bottom of the page). Everything thing else links to hardware. El Cap has a link on the main page but it’s in the ‘new stuff’ section so it’s transient.
BTW, if I did over look a direct (or at least semi direct) link please point it out to me, because having to do so much digging to get to info about a ProApp is a little sad and I’d love to be mistaken in this case.
EDIT: fixed some grammar, sure they are more problems.
-
[Oliver Peters] “Why not promote it more heavily?”
Maybe Apple assumes pros are diligent enough to keep clicking until they find what they need? 😉
-
[Greg Jones] “I think if you use any editing program to make money, it could be considered professional.”
I draw a distinction between the person and the tools. For example, a long time ago I cut weddings for an event videographer that worked on the more… affordable… end of the spectrum and I used iDVD to author the DVDs for the clients. He shot for a living, I cut for a living, so by that metric we were both professional, but I’d never consider iDVD a professional grade DVD authoring application even though I used it to make money. For my needs at the time it was fine, though I’m sure many people who had more exhaustive needs would not have found iDVD adequate (and eventually I went to DVD SP as my needs were no longer met by iDVD).
-
[Bill Davis] “Because my comment about Hollywood is in NO WAY unrelated.”
Maybe I’m took your previous post too literally.
I guess it’s the word “worry” that lost me because Hollywood doesn’t worry or care about X. Hollywood doesn’t worry or care about PPro, or Resolve (as an NLE) or that much for Lightworks anymore, and, as a whole, it didn’t pay a lot attention to Legend either…
If what you were trying to get across was that Hollywood doesn’t use X but these guys did then I agree with you. Though if you want to talk about the movie they made and how X was involved I don’t see what that has to do with Hollywood other than to illustrate that, yes, you can make a movie with X but we’ve already been there with Focus (which is the more notable of the two examples).
Or I am I still missing the point and this is really isn’t about guys in Spain making a movie but about you being right about what you said years ago (hence the emphasis on the old version of X they used)?
-
[Steve Connor] “Simple question, I just wondered if there is anyone left on here who thinks it isn’t?”
On here? Probably. In general? Yes. By me? No.
Pretty much the same can be said for FCP Legend, PPro, Avid, etc.,. Well, people the ‘pro-ness’ of Avid really isn’t debatable but many would call it an archaic piece of crap stuck in the 90’s.
-Andrew
-
Overall I think it’s pretty good (much better than just having pictures to look at). Things that could be improved upon:
Overall the video is pretty smooth but sometimes (especially at the beginning) the camera moved a lot with your footsteps so be mindful of that.
If possible open all the doors before you start shooting (maybe keep a few door wedges with you to keep them open) so that you can seamlessly go from room to room. Having the doors open will also make the house feel more open.
Plan your shoot a little better so you can stop and hold for a 5 seconds or so on areas of interest such as the kitchen, den, yard (if it looks nice), any furnished room, etc.,.
This pause will also give you a nicer transition into your pictures (ex. walk, pause, picture, pause, walk). This will make your inclusion of the pictures more intentional (and thus more professional).
Stay on the pictures 5-10 seconds (some of them were very short) and put a gentle move on each one (zoom in, zoom out, tilt up, tilt down, pan right, pan left, etc.,.).
Speaking of the pictures, they looked very nice and by comparison your video looked kinda plain. You might try doing some color grading on the video to make it look more appealing. You won’t be able to get it to look just like the pictures, but you can get it to look better.
Not every edit needs to be a dissolve. 9 times outta 10 a cut will work just fine.
Leave the floor plans up longer at the end.
Don’t use that pinwheel transition at the end (very cheese).
The text at the beginning is nice and legible (which is good) but it’s also very plain and feels low rent compared to the rest of the video. Having a simple lower third there would look better than just the plain text. Maybe something that is similar thematically with the logo in the lower right corner.
The text at the end is a different font than the text at the beginning (and both are different fonts than the logo in the lower right corner). Making all the text/GFX have the same look and feel will make the video more cohesive visually.
Kinda a long list but mostly spit and polish type suggestions as the foundation of the video is pretty solid.
-
[Charlie Austin] “I’m starting a feature right now on this secret new version of X.”
Make sure you document your process on social media so we can all enjoy the time machine together. 😉
-
[Jim Wiseman] ” It seems to me that Bill was merely suggesting we take a look at what was done with FCPX even at a very early stage.”
Then why not just post that X was used on this movie and here is a link with more info and leave it at that? Why make an unrelated comment about Hollywood if you don’t want that to end up as part of the discussion too?
-
I agree that monitor real estate is what we are talking about and not necessarily having multiple monitors. Though having multiple monitors allows you to have one in portrait and one in landscape if you are in to that sort of thing.
-
[Bill Davis] “while the US movie industry was testing and re-testing and worrying about whether everything related to if X was “pro enough””
The US movie industry (I assume you mean just ‘Hollywood’ and are excluding indies) was testing and re-testing? I thought they were just making Oscar winning movies using Avid like they have been for a couple of decades now. FCP 7 was probably the closest anyone has come to unseating Avid, but even at 7’s peak Avid was still used on the majority of projects and considered the de facto NLE.
Like I said in the old FCP days, when it’s no longer newsworthy that an NLE other than Avid was used to cut a Hollywood movie or big time TV show then that will be the signal X, PPro, Resolve, etc., has finally made it in Hollywood.
Of course this entire discussion is pretty much meaningless because we all know that a feature film work is irrelevant to 95% of the editors out there. 😉