[Bill Davis]

[David Roth Weiss] ”
It’s a good thing Phil Hodgetts had the fortitude to question Apple on that one. Right? So, maybe it’s not so bad to push for more?
“

Phil and I go back a ways. We’ve ended up talking a lot after the Supermeets over the past five or six NABs. He was kind enough to spend some time sitting with me to help me better understand the underpinnings of X at the last DV Expo.

So I think I can say with some confidence that regardless of how he might have “questioned” Apple along the path, he saw much more clearly than most the potential in FCP-X and has been a major supporter of their more modern “metadata accessible to the user” software approach right from the start.

He’s obviously wise enough not to have taken one look at it – said “it’s too different” – and wrote it off as “a massive mistake” at first blush.

FWIW.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

[Herb Sevush] “If my brother had grown up with a magnetic chessboard, where ranks and files came and went as the game changed, he’d have switched to bridge long ago.
“

But Herb,

Perhaps your brother might have really enjoyed one of those “try level” chess games that we all saw in the original StarTrek series?

Just because the game has been played in two dimensions for generations and plenty, PLENTY difficult in that form, doesn’t mean that there should NEVER be a different way to visualize things.

; )

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

[Rafael Amador] “Some people are unable to understand that for some others, video editing is like the chess game where you need a board where to see all your pieces at the same time. “

Just because I can’t resist – you do realize that there are lots and lots of exceptional chess players who are so good that they don’t even need a physical board?

They simply “think differently’ about the game than the player that has to exclusively use visual cues to maintain orientation.

Once again, what YOU may need to edit effectively, might not be what I need.

That’s the wonderful thing about choice.

The X coders may or may not ever put back what you miss, Rafael. But without doubt, they’ve forced all of us to re-consider what we “must” have to be able to create effective content.

In my case, it’s been an exciting and personally empowering new path. I’m so much more excited to approach my editing work with these new tools than I was after 10+ years of Legacy.

Sorry you’re not having as enjoyable time.

Peace.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

[Craig Seeman] “I have no problem with that. Given Apple’s methodology with this I suspect it will be contextual though rather than always on. Of course we know many editors want always on though. Personally I’m not wedded to always on. There are times when I need it.”

I once got a tour of the Disney Magic cruise liner bridge.

Great view, state of the art controls.

Later, the first officer took us on a tour of the port side remote steering controls, which are used to control the massive ship when in a specialized situation like tuning up the ships position next to an object that you can’t see from way up on the bridge.

Sure enough, a passenger got ill on the cruise, and when the sea ambulance came alongside, the ship was piloted by those very same remote controls.

I suspect they too, designed and built the primary steering apparatus first – since that would be used 99% of the time. Then designed the remote unit to meet the needs of the special operations.

It appears that FCP-X is developing with the same general sort of thinking.

Get the core stuff in place first, test it and perfect it so that everything works properly. Then design and install the items that are used less often but fulfill specific needs.

Made for a great cruise ship.

I suspect the same approach will end up constructing a great editing tool as well.

We shall see.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

[David Roth Weiss] “Perhaps some day you’ll learn to accept the fact that your POV is neither shared by everyone, nor is it the only correct POV.
“

David, I understand that perfectly well. But thanks for the reminder, I guess.

I have ONE view. Mine. Only time and the market will demonstrate whether my view is more or less accurate than yours. (or anyone else’s, for that matter.)

Actually, my view is pretty simple. Virtually everything I’ve written here is based on a single idea. Don’t pigeon-hole FCP-X as “broken” or “dumbed down” or “inadequate”) Particularly don’t do that if you can’t even demonstrate understanding of how it actually operates. If you can show that, I’ll listen to you. Some of my favorite exchanges here are those I have with Walter S, who pushes back at me all the time, but based on real arguments in intent, not knee-jerk “it’s different and that alone makes me angry” stuff.

It’s clear to all here that you’ve been pretty relentlessly negative about FCP-X as an approach to editing.

Fine. I just think your assessment is narrow and fundamentally flawed by your pre-conceptions. ((as are mine, I’ll freely admit.)

We’re now seeing a development path that shows pretty clearly that Apple is developing X as a fully professional editing tool.

Which partially belies you’re your consistently tonal contention that it’s incapable, ill-conceived, or somehow so deeply flawed as to make it unfit for professional use and that everyone must flee to one of the A’s in order to remain “professional.”

I’ve thought from day one that thinking like that was basically wrong. And this week, the tide has shifted more, IMO, to turn away from your view and a bit more toward mine.

That does not make me “right” and you “wrong” – because as I try to relentlessly acknowledge, different editors need different things.

I’m comfortable that if anyone looks back at these threads in a few years to see the POV of the participants – my view of “give it a chance, it’s pretty amazing in design and operation – and it looks like it might be OUTSTANDING for many common editing tasks” will look to have been largely reasonable.

And the “it’s a deeply broken toy capable of nothing worthy” view to have been short-sighted and rather foolish.

Period.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

[David Roth Weiss] “If Randy Ubillos and his team at Apple suddenly had a change of heart, and they added both audio tracks and the FCP viewer to FCPX, how many of you would be pissed-off, how many would be pleased?

Please pick one of the answers below:

a) I’d be pissed

b) I’d be pleased

c) I’d rather not say

If you’d like to explain your answer, please do. Next Friday I’ll tally everyone’s responses and we’ll see what the consensus is.
“

Goody, a “push poll.” And one that starts out by framing the program as “inadequate” to the extent that a “change of heart” is a central issue.

No “change of heart” is required, because nothing about X is currently broken.

You and a lot of others just can’t “give up” on what the program once was.

But it’s not that any more. It’s something new, interesting, and rapidly developing.

So sorry, David, but I just don’t accept your premis that having people “vote” on your constrained list of limited choices is at all valuable.

But if others want to participate, rock on.

I’m going to spend my time learning about all the new capabilities baked into 1.0.3.

FWIW,

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

[Bill Davis] “Quoting Walter S. via iPad.
I’m curious, Bill — I’ve read many of your arguments here as essentially populist, stating that it’s a waste of Apple’s resources to develop the features needed only by the broadcast niche in the face of so much demand from larger market segments, and yet here you’re talking about how FCPX would be a good fit for the broadcast niche.

Do you expect that Apple will double back and fill in the gaps for the markets they left behind last June, or do you expect that they’ll continue developing solely for the broad middle? If the latter, do you expect that the overlooked niches will drop some of their requirements in order to be able to use FCPX?
Close quote.

Walter. “

OK, Had some sleep, and wanted to address this.

As to my arguments being “populist” I guess there’s a mild component of that – but I don’t see it as a central one. There are true “populist” video tools that much better meet the needs of the “citizen editor” types. iMovie, Windows Movie Maker, et all, are designed specifically for that purpose.

To the extent that back in the day, the traditional editing system was something that only “corporate budget” types could afford, then FCP certainly helped “popularize” video editing, but I’m still comfortable in a world where only a relatively small percent of the whole pool o editors will take the time to invest in and learn the skills and use the tools of “professional editing” – and I’m fine with that.

One of the true charms of FCP-Legacy – from my view, is that most of us who initially popularized it (and I was there virtually from day one!) didn’t come from the “top down” tradition of editing skills, but rather trained ourselves from the “bottom up.” I think X will follow that arc very closely.

The big “hate” is coming from those at the top – who keep yelling about what it doesn’t do that they need. It’s fair, but just like the same contentions levied at Legacy in V1-3 – it largely misses the point.

Legacy started at the lower middle – but didn’t serve the top. And here we go again.

In the three days between the start of this thread and now, the second contention has kinda been answered. The vast majority of features announced yesterday in 1.0.3 is aimed pretty clearly at the upper end of the editing spectrum. There is still lots of missing stuff, but clearly the target is to build a tool that works UP as well as DOWN the production spectrum.

And finally, no. I don’t expect anyone to drop any requirement. If you need to do something that X don’t do – then you shouldn’t use it.

But that’s not the problem that interested me much. Because I don’t think “feature parity” is the path to success for X. In fact I think a race toward that is a race toward failure. That market is pyramid. It gets narrow at the top.

I think the path to success for X is to follow where the “new video” markets are emerging.

Video is increasingly consumed in new places, by people who have widespread needs.

Broadcast and Motion Picture needs are well documented and very specific.

But looking exclusively at that misses GIGANTIC parts of the real world spectrum.

What?

Imaagine X with it’s data management pedigree in some of these areas. (Niche work in Sports broadcasting, and similar data pool search specific tasks, so I’ll leave that off the list.)

But just consider how well it’s toolset matches…
Digital Signage
Web video.
Training Videos
Corporate Communications
Advertising
Law Enforcement & Legal
Pay per download content…

I could keep going with dozens of others but you get the idea.

I acknowledge that other editing software can prepare content for these perfectly well – but – in my opinion, they don’t have as targeted a feature set that makes them as well suited for these “not for broadcast” markets.

I think X will ROCK these industries. And as it does – it will get stronger and smarter and more capable, and eventually could land is WAY more than the 2 million seats that legacy earned in it’s lifetime.

I don’t think it’s “democratization” as much as it’s “industry-fication.” Or maybe “niche-ification.”

And that’s where I see the larger opportunities for the future.

Hope that makes sense.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

[Brad Davis] “They’ll keep adding to it but it will never be like FCP 7.”

Agree with this. And that’s a very good thing. 7 was great. But built for a different era and largely stuck in the particular needs of that era.

[Brad Davis] “This also further my previous conclusion 8 months ago that the entire FCS was dumped because of legal and licensing of the previous software more than anything.”

Disagree with this. If that was the only issue, they could have simply totally dumped their NLE business and the resulting revenue loss would have had an effect on Apple roughly equal to someone wielding a squirt gun during a monsoon rainstorm.

My view is that Apple had some of the finest NLE interface programmers on the planet in-house. And the best way to keep the top talent happy is to give them projects that challenge their skills and capabilities.

The X project was precisely that. A room full of top notch experts being given the ultimate reward for having built a program that changed the whole industry a decade plus ago. That last decade project has generated a nice return, so the FCP team was simply given marching orders something like “dream big, don’t be afraid to break with tradition if you think you can make something that will work better in the changing landscape of media in the 21st century.”

I think they’ve done that.

Legacy developed to meet the needs of the video/movie industry in 2000. That was a world where broadcast and motion picture production were the “marquee” outlets. – but web video, video for teaching purposes, and video produced for the kinds of iDevices that Apple produces have generated new needs that are basically “different” from the old MovieStudio/TV station model.

So Apple is constructing a tool for this new world.

Simple as that.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

I still disagree about this with most of you.

I think the difference between Legacy and X can be seen as Legacy was a “versioning” program where every project can exist in all sorts of unfinished states while you decide what you really want. But then, when you decide what your particular FINAL program is – you had to BAKE that into a terminated document. That’s how most videos were made in the past – and how many of them still need to be made in the present and will suite many projects in the future – but does that mean the “draft, draft, draft, then bake a final – is the only “best” way to develop ALL programs?

Let your thinking roam a little.

Increasingly, the world is valuing projects that aren’t necessarily “terminated” but those that can be published in “progressive states. One example is video hosted on a web site. It really doesn’t have to “terminated” to be valuable. It might have one “state” today. Perhaps content with current pricing – but that content may need to change tomorrow. Sale prices, revised rules, special offers – the list of content changes can be almost endless.

In X, everything in the Project Library can be viewed as a “live connected” final. It’s exportable in it’s current state – but the moment you make a change, the “current state” is updated in real time.

Perhaps one of the things X will evolve more towards is a content creation tool that better enables changes to be done incrementally. The project library can just as easily be seen as a rudimentary “content management” view. Where the “current” state of projects are reflected. The Share menu is poised to do “one click” publication.

I see that as potentially a lot more useful than “always bake a version of this timeline and cut it off from further access” which is how I’d describe the Legacy reliance on “serial project export.”

Again and again, if you only look at X in terms of what you’re “missing” from Legacy – I think you’re unnecessarily limiting your view.

You have a NEW tool here. It favors new thinking and new possibilities. Those who simply keep looking for it to be what Legacy was are going to be constantly disappointed.

Those who can see it for what it is – a program designed to re-think video creation workflows – rather than just keep doing things as we always have in the past – will be the first to leverage it’s unique capabilities and be poised to benefit as it matures.

My 2 cents anyway.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

Quoting Walter S. via iPad.
I’m curious, Bill — I’ve read many of your arguments here as essentially populist, stating that it’s a waste of Apple’s resources to develop the features needed only by the broadcast niche in the face of so much demand from larger market segments, and yet here you’re talking about how FCPX would be a good fit for the broadcast niche.

Do you expect that Apple will double back and fill in the gaps for the markets they left behind last June, or do you expect that they’ll continue developing solely for the broad middle? If the latter, do you expect that the overlooked niches will drop some of their requirements in order to be able to use FCPX?
Close quote.

Walter.

Have thoughts but am on location for two overnight shoots with 5 am pickups on another project in between. Will respond, hopefully by Wed. (this kind of schedule was fun in my 20’s. Now, not so much!)

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor