Andrew Kimery
Forum Replies Created
-
[Bill Davis] “My concern is that the higher up the food chain you go in the realm of design and editing, the less you want to make the entire process accessible to the whole team. One way to do that is to build complex workflows with specialists in-house – and wall off people via access restrictions. The other method is to let the designers “reach in” and apply their expertise directly into the project creation stream.
I’d disagree and say that the higher up the food chain you go the more you need software to be able to talk to each other. Be it all the collaborating editors using the same NLE or using software that understands industry standards like EDLs, OMFs, etc., so that two different pieces of software can at least talk in a common tongue.
And if you opt for the latter, then each contributor using their own tools and methods is perfectly reasonably – rather than making them come into a fixed “seat” and work on only the tools the company provides.A homogenous workflow is inherently redundant which is a must in a collaborative edit because Murphy’s Law dictates at least one person (or one machine) will become unavailable at the worst possible time. If you started editing a long from project and figured you’d need some help for a couple weeks to meet your deadline would you seriously not put any constraints on what the other editor used for his NLE?
I guess I just see more work available in the distributed creation model these days rather than the “under one roof facility” – but I know many others work inside that more traditional model.”Like in my example I gave before you don’t have to be under one roof in order to collaborate and gain advantages by using the same software. For example, take two editors working on different scenes of the same TV show but in different States. They are both have all the media and they both have the same NLE so when they want to compare edit,s and stitch it all together at the end, all they have to do is send a project file. Boom, easy as pie.
-
[Jim Giberti] “I would say because it defies reason that Apple would develop this whole new FCPX paradigm and not sell hardware that runs it optimally.”
Apple might have a different definition of “optimally”. 😉
-
[Craig Seeman] “Of course one might argue FCPX is a variant of that given that there’s no upgrade pricing in the App Store. $300 for life and on a few of your systems as well.”
There might be no upgrade pricing in the App store but I never assumed that to mean they’ll never be a new version of FCPX which will cost another $299. -
[Bill Davis] “That X is constructed on a metadata scaffolding is just a reflection that all of communications is increasingly built on that same reality.”
I agree that metadata is worth its weight in gold, but I don’t find myself as enamored w/FCPX’s metadata abilities. Maybe part of it is because I’ve worked as a vault librarian and an AE so for years my whole world was tagging, sorting, organizing, cross-referencing, tracking and protecting assets from less meticulous users. A few years ago I would’ve gone gaga over FCPX’s metadata but then I saw things like FC Server and CatDV I was like “This. Is. Awesome.”
I want more than FCPX can provide which is why I’m looking at standalone DAM (Digital Asset Management) software. I also worry about putting all my meta-eggs in the FCPX basket and then not being able to get them out again. For software like CatDV it’s in their best interests to use open standards and make CatDV as compatible w/as many NLEs as possible so that makes me more comfortable when I think about the process of building an asset library that will live and grow with me for years, and hopefully decades, into the future.
-
[Bill Davis] ”
Back when “big iron” costs made it impossible for the person at the controls to own the system, forcing workers to use a factory owners expensive machinery made sense.But those days are nearly gone.”
While the costs have certainly come down incompatible hardware, software, codecs, etc., still keep it from being a ‘bring your own guitar’ free for all. Even small shops might have multiple seats or maybe just one seat and if you work w/them it’s bring your own rig but you still need to use the same software they do.Susan E. Morse (Woody Allen’s editor for many years) recently got brought on to edit Louis C.K.’s show. Susan is Avid and Louis is FCP. Susan will learn FCP because that’s easier than retooling the shows whole workflow for Avid.
If you are a one-seat shop that’s just responsible for delivering the final product to the client
Honestly, as the gear gets cheaper and cheaper and editing becomes more easily done remotely then collaboration will be on the rise, not the decline, IMO. I’ve edited a number of projects where the project & assets were shuttled around on portable HDDs so even though we all working remotely the collaboration need to be the same as if we were all working under one roof.
-
I always had the outlook that if FCPX gets ‘good enough’ for what I need then I’ll take another look at it (my first look being when it launched). Unfortunately one of my needs is that the program be adopted by companies doing projects (TV shows, documentaries, etc.,) that I want to work on. I’m sure someone will say that learning FCPX now will make me more ready when that day comes, but I wasn’t in on v1 of Avid, AE, PS, FCP, FinalTouch/Color, etc., and that hasn’t hindered my ability to get paid to work w/the those tools.
The way I’m looking at things now is any time I could spend tinkering w/FCPX is time I’m not spending getting my Avid chops back, digging deeper into AE or getting comfortable with Resolve. All of which will help me land my next gig where as knowing FCPX will not. I’ve actually seen a number of LA-centric job ads saying ‘looking for FCP editor (not X)’.
Another need, which is probably more subjective, is that FCPX significantly improves my editing workflow and efficiency. I know the learning curve will be higher than picking up PPro, for example, but if it provides me w/a much better way of doing what I need to do then I’m down. I’m not interested in just doing things differently, but I am interested in doing things better.
-
People came for the price and stayed for the features. If FCP wasn’t in the realm of ‘so cheap you might as well buy a copy’ it would have struggled a lot more, IMO. It’s kinda like the color grading scene of maybe 5-6 years ago. Sure, at $25k FinalTouch was a bargain compared to $250k for a DaVinci but it’s still $25k. Then Apple acquires FT, rebands it as Color and releases it as part of FC Studio package and suddenly a color grading desktop revolution is born.
-
Like they say, you never get a second chance to make a first impression.
-
[Clint Wardlow] “What I find odd is the resistence by people who aren’t really pros, like this DSLR shooter.
I think Michael answers to this pretty well.
[Michael Garber] “What stops me from using it is that most of my production clients don’t have FCPX and don’t want it – or have no editors trained in it. So, when I use FCPX, I’m basically on an island. The production co’s don’t want me to use it because they can’t get back into the projects to do future work.”
There are also many people that make gear decisions to help legitimize themselves in their own eyes as well as in the eyes of a client and if the ‘pros’ they follow discount FCPX odds are they will too. It’s a ripple effect.
FCP classic ran into the same issue and it took years of people that could afford Avid, that knew Avid, to choose FCP over Avid before the perception shifted. It took people like Shane Ross, Walter Biscardi, Mark Raudonis, Walter Murch, the Coen Brothers, Digital Film Tree, etc., talking about how they successfully use FCP for big projects before the perception changed and FCP was seen a legit alternative to Avid.
There can be a ‘grass roots’ FCPX movement, just like there was for FCP, but until it becomes more widely used on higher end projects it will always be seen as a less program than Avid or FCP.
-
I don’t think the perception will change until FCPX spends a few years being used on very high profile projects like ‘Hollywood’ feature films and big, network TV shows. I’m saying this just based on what it took for FCP classic to be viewed as a serious Avid contender on a wide scale as to the NLE people who couldn’t afford an Avid used. Productions like Scrubs and Cold Mountain were the first ‘big’ projects to cut a path starting w/FCP 3 & 4 and I don’t feel like it was until FCP 6 that the program stopped getting scoffed at left and right.
Apps like Premiere and Vegas are used by a ton of people but they are rarely, if ever, used on high end projects which is a big reason they are typically considered second class programs even if they are capable NLEs w/unique features.
-Andrew