Bill Davis
Forum Replies Created
-
X has a generate time code function built in.
(in the Generators area under Elements)Pop it over black (or anything you like) then crop, range and export it as a separate element you can re- use to your hearts content.
“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
-
X has a generate time code function built in.
(in the Generators area under Elements)Pop it over black (or anything you like) then crop, range and export it as a separate element you can re- use to your hearts content.
“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
-
Herb,
I’m trying not to make presumptions about FCP’s competitors here. I’ve seen enough posts where someone essentially says (but editing package x already does that beautifully) to feel confident making a personal assertion that the advances I see in X – over what I know as a longtime FCP editor are unique to X.
I suspect that a large chunk of the new, robust database model in X is innovative. Certainly it is with respect to Legacy. But I just don’t have enough knowledge of the other NLEs to state so broadly.
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
-
[Herb Sevush] “I don’t know how work can be disconnected from the tools you use.
“Herb,
Who’s arguing that they should be “disconnected?”
All I’m saying is that if one is a great pianist, it’s insignificant for the audience if you’re playing a Steinway, a Bosendorfer, or a Yamaha.
Similarly, if you need additional tonal colors – you go with a Hammond B3- or a Moog, or whatever.
With advancement, maybe you get ALL those tonal colors via ProTools.
The point is that the critical skill is to decide which approaches are “frippery” and which are harbingers of a new trend in the industry. (I can almost hear you argue that this is not a “new trend” at all, Herb, but for the vast majority of general editors, it is EXACTLY that – since they haven’t had the capability to do the serious data management that the top end pros have enjoyed for a long time.)
The elevation of data handling to a position perhaps “as important” as the timeline itself, appears to me to be a trend that FCP-X is driving down to the “industrial” level of video editing.
And I think that’s going to prove to be a VERY welcome change.
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
-
[Chris Harlan] “And perhaps you’ve drunk way, way too much Kool-aid.”
So the observation that one program has single direction information flow – and that the new verson of that program has bi-directional information flow — and that might be interesting to people trying to decide between them — is, in your mind, roughly equivalent to duping men, women and children into drinking a poison laced beverage?
Interesting the way your mind works, Chris.
“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
-
[walter biscardi] “Apple is no longer interested in enterprise solutions so the dedicated desktop machine that is used by professionals is going away. “
Which begs the question “for how long will the enterprise exclusively remain interested in enterprise solutions.”
For the “back of house” tasks, for a long time likely.
But in the new era where it’s quite possible that a worker will have better technology available to them personally, than the enterprise can afford to plop on their desktop – then it’s also fair to look downstream and see what the general cultural migration from “computer is a thing that companies have” to “computers are things that people have” might bring about in business.
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
-
[David Lawrence] “In FCP Legacy, there are many rules too, but at least you never had to consider an object container model when making a dissolve.”
I’ll get in trouble again, probably, but here goes…
Again and again here, we keep seeing a reflection of something I find extremely interesting.
After 10 years of development and, honestly, expansion, each FCP-Legacy editor had become well adapted to the parts of Legacy that fed their personal and particular comfort. And they ignored LOTS of other capabilities and processes that didn’t meet their requirements or simply didn’t not cross their awareness at the right time.
The reason I say this is because we keep seeing editors say “you can (or can’t) do this” and someone else proves the opposite by showing how. I know I’ve done the same. I learned Legacy starting at V1, have used it constantly since, (on hundreds of projects) and I’m constantly surprised at what I still don’t know about it.
That depth and utility was not there at the beginning. Trust me. It just wasn’t. (As I’ve mentioned before not even JKL transport was in V1.)
David, with all respect, looking at the “data model” and trying to argue either for or against FCP-X in it’s first iteration might be both fair and interesting, but I believe it can only relevant if it exposes “universal” truths. And I think those are few and far between at this stage.
Similarly, the magnetic timeline. If it proves annoying to more users than useful (or even tolerable) then it will drag down the success and adoption of the program.
I suspect it will not, because in my experience, it takes a couple of week to get used to – then it makes as much sense as any other timeline construct – and the editor moves on from “how does it work” to just doing the work.
“Considering an object container model when doing a dissolve?:” Why is that so different than “considering the underlying clip length when doing a dissolve? We ALL had to learn that the first time we tried to slap a dissolve on the end of a clip with no head or tail. The solution rapidly becomes OBVIOUS with trial, error, and experience. Just as with every iteration of every piece of software we operate.
To tie this back to the first few paragraphs, we worry too much, I assert, about missing features, keystrokes, and workflows. I totally get that these are the touchstones of our comfort as editors. Again and again we see, editors who came to want to do something at some point – only to discover that it was already there and missed — merely because they didn’t see it, didn’t initially need it, or merely conditioned themselves to do it another way, and never bothered to explore the alternatives. That’s the story of individual editing. And it always will be.
The mistake, I believe, is to become so rigid in ones thinking that we generalize through the application of ill will, something that does things in a different way – until we have some time and space to see whether those things appear different when we gather the deeper knowledge of what they might provide us anew.
Glass half full? Glass half empty? One editors “Ick” is another editors “Interesting” and both are correct, based on their thinking and style, not on the water.
I embrace the “object container model when making a dissolve” idea. It’s new to me. And I enjoy new.
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
-
[Dylan Hargreaves] “It seems pretty clear by now that Apple does not consider the pro-video/broadcast/film arena as somewhere it wants to be. Steve Jobs (RIP) has even said on many occasions: ‘Apple is a mobile device company’.”
Just remember, that for long time NAB attendees like me, there were decades of no hint of a computer company like Apple. Then a stretch of about 5 years when we saw a long major decline of the big broadcast companies and the ascendence of the computer companies like Apple, Avid and Adobe. They were part of what re-defined professional video in the late 90’s and through the turn of the century.
Then they moved on. Apple was the first out – but that didn’t’ mean they stopped developing for the market – they just went outside of the “inside industry” view and arguably, took it in new directions.
For someone with an exclusively “broadcast” orientation, that may look strange, but it was a world where the only real options you had for viewing content was your home TV and your local movie theatre.
Today, that’s just not the same at ALL.
Instead of two places, video is integrated into hundreds of places in the everyday person’s life. And (and this can’t be emphasized too much, IMO.) It’s increasingly disconnected from the “embedded commercial” driven distribution model. For every “tv channel” in a bar, on a mall sales floor, or displayed on someone’s blackberry while they’re stuck waiting for a bus – there are now a virtually unlimited array of sources of compelling content available. (Including, I might add, the excellent tutorials residing right here on the COW!)
I agree that isn’t “broadcast” or “film” via the classic definitions (tho I could argue handily that if you allow for just a “slightly” looser definition of “broadcast” the COW tutorials are exactly that!) but I still contest that stripping it from the PRO Video label is a major, glaring mistake.
In fact, I think there will be more “PRO” video being created for OTHER than broadcast and movie distribution in the future.
And it will be as “pro” as people like us chose to make it – and completely disconnected from the choice of tool we use for creation.
It’s no a “mobile device” play. It’s a “foreseeable future of where the largest group of customers will want to USE video” play.
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
-
[Chris Harlan] “And in FCP slug is a “thing” rather than “nothing” the program recognizes the entity and can assign filters to it, rename it, etc. Your weird argument about spitting out aggregate length is sophistry, and nothing more. Why, exactly, would someone want to do that?”
The difference, Chris, is that in Legacy it’s a ONE way street. You can talk to a slug. But a slug talks to nothing. (actually just like ALL clips in Legacy)
The whole point of the DB in X is that it’s based on 2-way communication. Not only do you talk to your clips (apply filters, etc.) but once you do, the clips reflect that information BACK to the database from which they sprung.
For example, change the order of a clip on the timeline, and the ORDER of that clips changes in the Timeline Index (for example) as well.
In many ways this is one of the most fundamental ways that X is different from Legacy.
And if you haven’t come to understand that yet, perhaps you stopped your examination of FCP-X a bit too soon?
“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
-
[Chris Harlan] “Agreed. The revolution was a little more than a decade ago with the advent of competitive online NLEs. To compare the release of X to that is absurd.”
Unless the significant break from the “traditional and incremental” evolution of the NLE that FCP-X represents isn’t actually the important point in and of itself – but rather a sign of something more fundamental happening in how content may need to be created in the future.
If so, you’re contention that this program isn’t a similar revolution is actually not on point.
But there’s no way to tell early in the transformation. We’ll only know looking back in a decade or so.
As always, time will tell.
“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