Bill Davis
Forum Replies Created
-
[David Roth Weiss] “Are you trying out for the Apple PR team Bill? If so, your rhetoric and hyperbole are really top notch. I’m sure many here would recommend you for the gig if you’d just stop laying it all on us at every opportunity.
“Make you an even-up trade, David.
I’ll stop as someone who talks about what I LIKE about FCP-X – and in return, you get the the folks who keep coming here saying “but (insert MY software) already does that – so that means FCP-X is actually really lame and unoriginal.
It would be a win-win, no?
Seriously, you can’t tell me that for months the tone hasn’t been somewhere between dismissive to downright HOSTILE to FCP-X.
What’s the problem with a voice that’s laudatory about it?
If I’m saying something that’s not true – or even something that’s debatable, you KNOW that there are plenty of voices ready to jump in and gleefully post about how I’m wrong!
And in this particular case, isn’t it a little skitzo that people are saying it’s BAD because it’s TOTALLY different than what they expected – and then questioning that that very same things that cause it to be so different (new code) isn’t a blessing?
I’d get that argument if the code in FCP-X wasn’t effective or didn’t DO editing. But it does. So the rest is just perception and opinion and wants, needs and personal preferences.
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
-
[David Lawrence] “Bill, from the definitive tone of your statements, it sounds to me like you’ve had remarkable direct access to the engineers and designers of FCPX. Is there anything else from your conversations with them that you’re able to share?”
I WISH.
That view is from I saw and heard at the SuperMeet introduction. They talked, IIRC about starting with a clean slate. And the program they introduced was OBVIOUSLY not a simple “tweak” of the Legacy code base that I could tell. And clearly the fact that X is built, not around Quicktime (as Legacy clearly was), but rather AV Foundation and Core Video, kinda supports that as well, don’t you think?
I’m not a programmer, so this is all supposition on my part. But I do listen to when the smart guys are talking, even if I don’t always totally understand what they’re saying. ; )
“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
-
Hummm….
Notice how FCP-X has a good part of it’s user interface “off screen.” (the project library, the event browser, various HUDs etc. that kinda “swipe in” when you click on the proper icons?
For all we know, they might come up with an effective iPad implementation that uses a simple “2 window” screen with the timeline displayed below the viewer – and then everything else you needs comes up with a swipe or tap to “float around” the display.
That would actually kinda rock on an iPad for “on the go” editing.
Maybe just as X borrowed some code and ideas from iMovie – maybe the next iMovie might borrow some of the interface ideas back from X and turn into a sweet little iPad editing program.
Apple always seems to have their eye on what their customers might enjoy having in the future.
No telling where this product family is going, really.
But I think it’s actually kinda exciting once you stop demanding it be a single thing (a top tier pro’s only editing system) and imagine what it might be for the widest possible swath of people who need to edit at the bottom, middle AND top ends of the editing spectrum.
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
-
But it is, Frank.
When I have to update my Legacy work, I have to go back to the desktop system and FCP-7.
I simply can’t even FATHOM starting any new projects on that system.
X simply “feels” much, MUCH quicker now that I have experience in using it.
For me, it’s like going back to chopping down the tree with an ax after you’ve had some experience with a chainsaw.
Actually, now that I’ve written the line above, I can tell it’s gonna make some people defensive or angry. YES, it’s a tortured analogy. Deal with it. We all know that some editors face predominantly smaller trees. Other editors face redwoods. Not all solutions fit all editors – but that’s no reason to argue that a person can’t experience a chainsaw after using an AX and see the value.
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
-
[Oliver Peters] ” I don’t particularly see companies lowering their expectations as much as they lower the budgets. They may want to have the “cool, current, look” but they will also reject crap.”
A) Agreed, sadly.
and
B) I sincerely hope so!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
-
Look, respectfully, to all those who keep asking “since (other software) does this too, what’s better?”
The clear and indisputable answer to this is as follows.
They RESET the software to ZERO and started out fresh.
Every line of code is clean, clear, and purpose built to do what they wanted. Every feature built into the old had to EARN it’s way into the new build. Every line of FCP-X code is optimized for the hardware world we live in today. The stuff they built for YESTERDAY’s editing environments – that’s the stuff they left out. (And precisely what hurts so many with a serious requirement to support hardware, software, and necessary workflows as they were done back in LEGACY.)
Many people see the “clean slate” approach as the PROBLEM.
Some of us see it as the smartest possible step towards a cleaner, brighter future for the software.
The FCP equivalent of ZERO BASED BUDGETING.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
-
[Oliver Peters] “In the end, if I’m hiring an editor, I am ultimately interested in the exact NLE he or she knows how to operate. “
This, to me, might be the key phrase here.
That meets YOUR needs. But possibly not the needs of the much broader market.
In the past, companies had to “hire editors.” Which is what your business model still supports.
Today, companies seem to be less and less “hiring editors” and instead are more focused on “seeking content”.
And they don’t particularly care if that content is created by a formally trained editor in your shop, a journalist who cut something on his laptop while waiting in the departure lounge at Heathrow, or some kid had his cel phone camera rolling when the gas station caught fire – posted his “edited” results on YouTube initially for his buddies – then watched it go viral.
The content drives the economic results – NOT the way it was produced.
That’s the world where FCP-X “fits like a glove”
You can certainly determine that YOUR guy must use the tool you approve of.
But outside of your shop, the forces changing the very NATURE of video editing as a practice are uncontrollable. And with open access to information and skills development in today’s society – all THREE players will be getting better as editors every day.
That’s the struggle here. “Editing” ain’t what it used to be. For better or worse.
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
-
I was in an Apple store last week as well
And watching the “Genius” crew help people with half a dozen laptops – made me remember the time maybe 5 years ago when I had a memory glitch in my MacPro and dragged it into the Apple Store on a Saturday so that they could check out a memory module I suspected had gone bad, and maybe replace it on the spot and get me back to editing to help me meet my Monday deadline…
I remember feeling really odd having to drag my big silver beast on a rolling cart through the retail store.
If that NEVER happens to me again, I won’t miss it.
The tower was a great form factor for a fixed edit suite. But that’s clearly not the only place “editing” happens today.
For what it’s worth.
“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
-
[Oliver Peters] “If you want to leverage what you already know, then FCP X is the wrong tool. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be the tool that dominates in the future… UNTIL Apple changes it AGAIN ;-)”
Oliver,
I understand what you’re saying – and if you think “what you already know” is largely about OPERATION, then I’d agree.
But I think increasingly that if you peg “what you already know” to tool operation you’re playing an increasingly losing game no matter which NLE you operate. The market has nearly totally devalued the “operation” skills of the video editor. There are multiple millions of people around the world with with “NLE operation” skills today. Yes, fewer at the top end, but everyone who is currently NOT at the “top end” are likely getting better every day with practice – and that means “operational excellence in NLE driving” is going to be less and less a competitive advantage in the future. What I believe is left in the wake of that are the intangible skills of judgement, taste, and business skills. Not editing prowess.
I think Tony’s story is a big deal. (and thanks for posting it here, Tony!)
It’s a glimpse into a world where video editing skills are rapidly becoming GENERAL business skills – not specialist talents as they used to be.
If that’s true, then the future belongs to tools that are the MOST accessible to the most people who need to edit.
I actually agree with Dennis’s post about how Adobe has tools that are already in the newsroom environment – and to the extent they can leverage those, they might have some advantages in that area. But it’s going to be a tough battle. They are up against a monster competitor in Apple. And to make matters worse for them, Apple just took the BIG gamble and STRIPPED much of the core complexity out of their flagship NLE product.
Those same “features” that pro editors hate – the magnetic timeline, clip collision avoidance, looking at video in a vertical arrangement of connected elements rather than exclusively as discrete chunks over a rigid time base – those things might be mothers milk to new business editors who don’t have to overcome too much baggage about how editing is SUPPOSED to be done – but rather can remain focuses on how it IS done in the new software.
I would imagine the Adobe is looking at what Apple did with X and thinking about their own “future strategy” for editing in a world of more mobile devices and on-line outlets – rather than the “broadcast” legacy of things like the Viewer/Canvas reflection of the old Preview/Program paradigm.
We all know things are changing.
The question is which company is changing WITH their users – and which companies will keep trying to CHANGE their users to fit their companies needs. (an argument that can clearly be “spun” for or against either approach, IMO btw!)
Both Apple and Adobe, (and AVID and SONY et al) have the capability to make great tools for this new generation. The only untold story is which will figure out the right strategy.
The Apple bet is pretty clear. They value individual empowerment over catering to the structural needs of organizations – betting that in the future, individual user demands will increasingly trump what IT dictates. (kinda like what’s happening with people bringing their own customized laptops to work and businesses caving to the onslaught of the iPad culture!) That works in SOME companies, not all. But it appears to be an increasing trend.
So I think the real question is whose tools will prove to be more accessible to the most important market of the future.
And the story is still totally undecided on that.
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
-
Cat 5 is a DATA cable standard.
If you’re doing the digital sampling at the camera and converting it to pure 1s and 0s then you can certainly send the result via Cat5.(or any other wire scheme capable of digital data transmission.
HOWEVER.
Nearly all video is an analog signal (or often a SET of signals) at the source. Cat 5 is a TERRIBLE transmission media for analog signals. It has none of the coaxial shielding that keeps radio frequency noise from infecting signals in long cable runs and if you’re sending a mixed VIDEO signal, you may be operating with the parity checking and other signal verification built in to data streams.
So your idea is POSSIBLE. It just requires high quality analog/digital converters at EACH camera – and the appropriate decoder(s) at the receiving end.
Historically, runs from cameras back to a central switching point have been done via Coaxial runs, since they are as immune as possible to interference and pass the signal in “real time” without the delays necessary for signal verification.
The only “cameras” I’ve seen that commonly use Cat 5 are security cameras – where the ability to recover the finest possible signal at the receiving end is a very low priority.
There are some “video over cat 5” solutions in some of the catalogs like Markertek – but I’ve yet to run into someone using them in an actual “live switch” situation. But that’s not my core practice.
So YMMV
Good luck.
“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