[Bill Davis]

I would ask you how much of that HD is VIEWED as HD.

I see people shooting all the time in HD and in the end, they re-compress for web delivery.

Unless you’re pushing to HDTV or have a contract to fill a big screen, the lure of HD shooting is that you’re capturing MORE resolution than you’ll need at the end of the chain.

If so, this is a perfectly viable workflow if you elect to adopt it.

If not – well, it’s not.

Just don’t get stuck in thinking that just because you SHOT in HD, you MUST therefore post in HD.

Perhaps the real lesson for the students is to ALWAYS ask about your primary delivery format. Because that might give you MORE options than your current thinking allows.

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]

Depends on what your definition of “deliverable” is.

Shoot as much HD in the field as you need. Proxy that to the cloud if you need to share footage with others, keep it local if not.

Cut your project.

If it’s a spot or a short length work, Sync only the deliverable in full res as an upload for distribution.

If it’s a longer length edit like a TV show or a documentary, somebody has to take delivery of the full rez source files, load them locally, download or load that that proxy in suite to conform a master – and distribute that by something with enough bandwidth to make sense. Satellite, optical line, or Fed Ex – whatever works and the client can afford.

I will say that in my corporate training work over the past two decades, program length has dropped dramatically.

I used to commonly do corporate training programs in 30-40 minute lengths.

I haven’t done a piece (outside of convention coverage where they want the troops to get a wide view of the entire event) that’s been longer than 8 minutes in about 3 years.

My typical deliverable is averaging between 3 and 5 minutes these days – likely because all the client’s want it to be web accessible.

The trends I’m seeing are: Shorter delivered masters. Huge increases in compression delivery algorithm efficiency, and increasing need for distributed production. (Clients want me to go to them to discuss and tweek edits, not stop what they’re doing and come to me.)

These are some of the fundamental shifts that I’m seeing.

Combine these elements with the need for increasing team web collaboration and delivery format agility and I think thats why tools like FCP-X will find a place. Laptop friendly. Compression agile. It’s perhaps a RISC editor? Pared down to what’s required for the average real world job – and to become that, they had to stop trying to be the perfect uber-Hollywood all-in-one suite tool.

Just things to consider.

“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,

Interesting read – but I couldn’t disagree with the author more.

This smacks to me of the kind of modern “wall street” thinking that views every decision through the lense of “what’s in it for me right now.”

That drives short term profits – and if that’s all you care about – it’s an excellent strategy. But it’s also led to the kind of thinking that gave us the real estate bubble and crash, and that’s led to the banking crisis. It elevates results NOW over investing in a long term sustainable business model that can drive higher profits – but over a longer period.

I’m quite pleased that Apple, In my estimation, continues to look at where the industry is likely to be going in the long run, rather then ONLY where it will be next year or next month – or even what *I* as a current 10year plus FCP editor might think I want right now.

Hell, 80% of what they built into the new software I’d never even CONSIDERED as a possible feature in an NLE. That’s the BEST part of it in my estimation.

They forced me out of my pre-conceptions and to consider new ideas. I absolutely get that some people saw that exclusively as “destroying” the software. They should absolutely look elsewhere. It’s the only rational thing to do. For those of us who see the change as a new opportunity, all we want is for people to stop spending so much time and energy trying to convince us that we’re too stupid to understand how horrible it is. It’s all been said before. Endlessly. For the OP, if that’s your mantra, you and countless other like you have made your point. It’s time for you to move on to something else.

But some of us simply see something else here. I absolutely think FCP-X is a long tail play. We won’t know the full payoff for years.

Without that understanding I agree it doesn’t make much sense. An no company gets to where Apple is today by willfully making decisions that don’t make sense.

Nearly EVERY voice complaining here has the same central theme. “It’s not what I want *right now*.

Yes, it’s not. So to focus the debate entirely on “now verses when” PUSHES the poll. What it is now is exciting and interesting and flexible and new. And toxic to some ways of thinking, primarily the “it doesn’t do what it MUST do for me” crowd. You folks are correct. So simply change software.

I totally understand that thinking. Heck, I’ve raised a teenager so I’ve been watching it for the last 10 years! – (Stop right there — I’m NOT AT ALL saying that anyone who hates FCP is exhibiting teenage thinking, because I believe there are VERY rational reasons for finding it lacking in a whole WORLD of upper end mission critical editing workflows – exactly like many of the vested pros here must support. I’m saying that while it falls very much short of what some, even many editors need, expect and desire – theres another group of editors for whom it will be an EXCELLENT solution for workflows and tasks that I can see becoming more and more important on the horizon. And for most of the editors who need it to be something different from X, they still have 7 running just fine, thank you very much.

What does it mean to ME is always an important question. But it requires us to understand that ME is variable in the great world of editing.

The dumpers, haters, and doom sayers have had all the platform they could have possibly wished for over the past months.

I see something different in the same set of facts. Everyone gets to decide for themselves who’s vision they wish to subscribe to – – but you can ONLY do that when you’re willing to hear from both sides.

So when I see a post like the OP post here. I just want to say “there’s another way to see things.”

We’ll let the market place sort out who gets it right.

Personally, I’m fine with 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]

It’s incredibly tedious time and time again to say something and watch while the same people shoehorn it over and over again into their preconceptions of what i must have meant.

Please stop it.

Everyone here already has a perfectly acceptable video editing solution in hand called Final Cut Pro. It’s working fully and flawlessly for the bulk of the worlds editing needs. (The 2 million paid seats are still functioning just fine, including yours and mine.

So the ENTIRE discussion is predicated on where things are going in the future.

So viewing everything said here in the sole context of what it means right now misses the entire point, IMO.

It is in that context alone that this discussion is taking place. Yes, people like the OP in this thread are seeing things they don’t like and diving out to other tools. There is NOTHING wrong with that. They will either be short sighted or visionary, they will save their money now and have more later, or they will save it now and come to realized it would have been wiser to take a long term investment view.

Thus has it ever been.

I simply believe that it’s more than possible to convert a short term view into a LOUSY long term strategy. So I believe that there should be voices on BOTH sides that take the other to task if one thinks the discussion is revolving around a view that has rational alternatives.

My views are predicated on my history. I started with FCP in May of 1999, two weeks after it’s release. At that time it was derided, dismissed, and openly laughed at by the wider editing world. But for every on-line skirmish it lost, it won new converts from outside the mainstream – and eventually it triumphed.

I have NO CLUE about whether FCP X will do the same.

I just know that when things happen in my life I pay attention and try to get smarter. That’s the point of experience.

David Lawrence posted a thoughtful message below. I think the article he posted has it largely WRONG.

I’ll write my thoughts in that thread.

As always, feel free to ignore them. These are opinions only. Everyone here has strong opinions. I try to post the WHY behind what I opine. Take it or leave it.

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]

We’ll likely know in about 3 years whether this public pronouncement is prescient or short sighted.

“…one good thing?”

Sounds extremely short sighted to me.

You’ve decided that the FCP strip and rebuild is 99.9% useless and .1% worthwhile. I accept that this is your reality based on what you need to do today. But I also think it’s limiting to consider what you do today as the ideal template for what the market is going to force you to do tomorrow.

The cloud is coming. Workflows MUST change. Look at the release attributes of Windows 8 if you don’t believe me. Agility will likely trump traditions. Ask the FLASH community who just learned that Windows 8 doesn’t support it. I’m pretty sure we’ll all need to learn and operate more than one instrument in order to secure seats in the media orchestras of tomorrow.

Maybe Adobe will actually end up being the agile and innovative editing platform of the future. Nobody knows for sure.

What we do know is that they are NOT the first company that took the astonishingly risky step of gutting and re-imagining the wholesale foundations of their code base in order to leverage what the media landscape might be in the future.

Every day studying FCP-X tells me it’s a new tool for a new age. I might be absolutely wrong. But I’m also NOT stopping my exploration. If for no other reason that when I jettisoned my fear of what was different, I finally starting seeing what about it might be a lot better.

For example I recently stumbled on a chart showing CPU allocation that showed that the code in FCP-X is a VERY minor CPU cycle drain where technology like Flash GULPS cycles like a binge drinker. Will that be critical as we move into a new generation of mobile processors and an increasingly Win8/iOS world?

Admittedly, I don’t occupy a seat where production efficiency is everything. If I did, I might feel precisely like you do. FCP-X is NOT a “buy it and get back to where you were in editing efficiency in 2 weeks” tool. It requires a LOT of revised thinking and a WHOLE lot of learning in order to operate efficiently.

But it’s also instructive to note that a whole lot of people are starting to understand what it’s unique strengths are and are starting to see where it can leverage success.

Short game or long game? In golf, you can’t win without both. Perhaps the same is true for media manipulation?

Just food for thought.

“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]

Let me add that in the era of inexpensive HD DSLR shoots, if you’re posting for SD and shooting on HD, the need for cutaways decreases rapidly since you can digitally push in on the HD frame to create an SD CU out of a MS to avoid the jump cuts that a single camera interview was traditionally plagued with.

As sensor resolution continues to increase, this becomes more and more a norm and less an exception.

I always advocate learning how to do things the traditional way first. But then that should inform your ability to break out of the traditions when required.

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

[Bill Davis]

Craig,

You must have had the same experiences I have.

You go into a market and ask the top 4 broadcast stations for their HD web delivery standards and you get a page of needless complexity from each hat bear no relation to any other stations (and seldom to the settings you can see on your encoding software!)

These were driven by engineers telling marketing what their servers and playout systems could handle – each driven by individual manufactuer standards without ANY coordination.

It’s a functional nightmare.

If the broadcast industry doesn’t get their act together – it’s going to get worse. Particularly since they’re in an environment of losing market share to the web so rapidly.

In streaming it’s WORST not better. Particularly since streaming is often served to a GLOBAL market where there’s not telling what kind of distribution system or end user equipment is in play.

So it becomes a “least common denominator” game.

Which, not to put too fine a point on it… sucks.

“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]

IMO, if you just get a single kind of light, you’re short changing the students.

Each light technology has it’s pros and cons and it’s best uses.

Tungsten is color accurate – and the fixtures that use is are designed for maximum control of the light beam – something that is priceless when you want to light part of a scene – but keep that light off other parts.

Fluorescent fixtures provide broad, soft light that is very flattring, especially for older talent with issues like wrinkles. (This is also why it’s common to put tungsten lights in soft-boxes) But these kind of broad, soft sources are very hard to controls compared to focused tungsten.

LED is the most energy efficient and cool, but it’s an array of spotlights that works great for some things and not so great for others.

Each has their place. To teach about one over the others is like teaching chefs ONLY baking. ONLY sauce making, or ONLY prep skills – when what a good professional cook really needs is exposure to the widest possible range of skills so that they understand as many approaches as possible.

I’d vote for 2 tungsten fixtures, perhaps a broad source like a Lowel Tota and a small 300 watt fresnel. Then get one 4″ fluorescent bank – and one LED panel. Order the LED and the Fluors in 3200k versions and then mix and match them to see what each does best.

“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]

Thanks David,

I’m looking forward to your futrure post.

Glad to hear that I can use X264 without too much fear.

I was kind hoping that Telestream was going to solve the encoding/transcoding complexity by publishing a set of “click and stream” encoding standards inside Episode that might catch on – at least in broadcast – so that some standards emerged that let everyone have a level playing field – but I suspect that’s not going to happen. There’s just too much competition in that space and too many engineers in too many companies who want to try to become the “defacto standard” and therefore get the long range licensing prize.

I actually also still have hopes for the TS Wirecast virual switch model – but it’s too soon to tell. It’s interesting to see that their “backpack” web transmission rig is now down to the size of a hardback book. Be great if that redundant multi-signal agile wifi signal distribution stuff gets simpler, cheaper, and ubiquitous. That could be the real game changer we’re all looking for – particularly if we get some form of “direct to laptop” switchable video feeds. Even if those were barely SD, that would make a lot of bread and butter conference coverage video possible at greatly reduced cost and hassle and potentially change the entire “information video” industry for the better.

Imagine being able to do an expert panel gig by just sitting iPod Touches on small stands – one in front of each person on stage on a panel — and having a tool to capture those streams, switch them live – and send the result out over a Static IP line.

I could travel with a briefcase instead of schlepping road cases around! THAT would be bliss of the first order!

Take care.

“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,

First and foremost, thank you very much for helping elevate this forum from the “piss and moan” state of the past few months – back toward useful, practical knowledge. For a while I literally had to just keep away because the environment here was so emotionally toxic. Hopefully, we’re returning to civility – and I appreciate your thoughts that appear to move us even more in that direction.

Plus, your link to X-264 is precisely the practical help that make time spent contributing here valuable.

I just wish the search for better tools could move even more rapidly.

I spent the early part of this week in another fancy hotel ballroom shooting conference coverage for a massive, global accounting firm – and I had to blow the dust off my SD gear because their live webcasts required SD Flash feeds.

It was so interesting to walk into the same kind of environment where I’ve been shooting for decades and see all the expected fly packs and recording tools replaced by 3 cheap PC laptops doing flash encoding and live feed via IP.

Yes, the delivered quality was abysmal – but the convenience of allowing 100,000 employees world wide to access the content in real-time trumps everything.

Those are the kind of forces shaping our world today. “Now” trumps “good.” Information relevance and freshness trumps the presentation quality of it’s delivery. Hopefully, those of us who care about quality can bring some of it back to the stream – and knowing about each incremental improvement – such as X-264 will help us accomplish that.

I do worry about compatibility, tho. Does the compression in the X-264 variant allow for good transportability? Will my large company corporate clients be able to parse and view it without VLC like tools? (Something I seldom can get by their IT departments since it represents something they not only don’t understand – but see as a “threat” since it represents data streams coming into their i-nets from an outside source.)

I’m definitely going to play with it – because I love anything that can maintain higher quality at reduced bandwidth. But so much of the world is so backwards (like those awful FLASH requirments for my corporate clients this past weekend) that I’m concerned that what I want – isn’t the same as what they need.

(sound familiar?)

Anyway, again, my personal thanks for both your tone and contribution.

Bill.

“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