Cam Khoury
Forum Replies Created
-
I’d say that Avid actually had the source viewer issue figured out pretty well years ago. MC allows you to swap the timeline between the source and sequence sides. That allowed you to zoom in as far you liked on a timeline of any clip or sequence while providing a scroll bar at the bottom so you could scroll in bigger chunks – you choose. An added advantage of that methodology was that you could load a sequence into the source monitor and switch views to see what was in that sequence, mark in/out points, and remap layers so you you never had to do a cut and paste to grab pieces from a sequence to insert into another sequence. I never had to unload a sequence to grab footage from anywhere. Much more powerful than anything FC ever did in any iteration. That made it so much easier to build select reels and string-outs, load those sequences in to the source monitor, and scroll through them to view them directly. Amazingly simple and powerful and yet so old. Thank goodness Avid is not so visionary that they would break that feature in the name of progress. There is a reason that so many editors and facilities still love Avid.
-
I agree with your attorney friend on this one. But you have to consider that even automakers are required by law to supply spare parts for the duration of a warranty which is itself a legal obligation. The real problem here is the lack of any warranty on software, Apple’s or anyone else for that matter. That’s quite absurd in itself. The idea that you should buy software to find out if you think it suits your needs is absurd. I suppose that $300 is not so bad when you consider what you’re getting but it still seems a bit like smoke and mirrors to me.
-
Gary, I would say that it represents either a major branding error or a huge deception by Apple.
It would be a major error since the brand is very well respected and using it for a completely new product would be unheard of in branding history. I suppose it would be like discontinuing a Mercedes C350 and branding a Smart Car with that same name and jacking up the price – completely illogical. It also expose them to the suggestion that Final Cut is no longer suitable for professional editors.
The deception is a little trickier but think it through. You take a brand name that has recognition and slip the baby brother (iMovie) of that product into the same slot as the big brother (FCP7). You can then get sales you would otherwise not have gotten had you introduced iMovie advanced, especially at $300. Use that revenue to support further development of the baby brother until it matures and equals or surpasses what big brother was.
There may be other explanations but I suppose we’re all speculating. Better to move forward.
-
Who knew this forum could be so entertaining! There seems to be flurry of opinions here so maybe if I offer this rant I’ll blend in.
Apple has not updated FCP in two years, offering an admittedly tepid update at that. The previous update came two years before that.
Adobe, a much smaller company with a much larger software inventory, has offered more frequent updates with many relevant feature updates. Adobe has done all that without completely restructuring the interface of their software and, more importantly, not completely changing the workflow. They offer new products all the time but introduce them in parallel with existing products so as not to disrupt profitable business operations. They still sell and support Pagemaker and Framemaker despite the fact that art directors and editors that I know prefer InDesign.
Here’s my point. To all that say that they are now getting 64-bit code, I say great But Adobe made that same leap and maintained a consistent interface while adding some fabulous features to boot. What gives? You could say that the interface needed revamping and I say great. But couldn’t you have done this on a parallel path and at least given the software the ability to communicate with other software? Maybe utilize XML or even a dumb EDL to allow edits to translate to another device? Or perhaps they could have thrown in Automatic Duck to do the job for them – seems like the polite thing to do. Legacy projects are vital to so many business models and to ignore that is unconscionable. To say that they will develop features on FCP X that already exist on a viable product, FCS 3, while discontinuing that product seems weird to me and makes me feel as if Apple only wants to sell hardware and use the software as a loss leader. In fact, since FCP X is not ready for a professional environment and FCS 3 is no longer sold, Apple no longer sells professional edit software.
Apple supporters are advancing the argument that it is a daunting task to do this all at once and we should give them time – come on, get real. Adobe completely rewrote the code for the entire Master Collection to 64-bit, added features and kept it running solidly. And they’re a much smaller company. Don’t equate Apple with some guys writing software in their basement. Apple is one of the world’s largest corporations with 66 billion dollars in cash reserves. They have the resources but fall short on commitment.
I would like to add this last note. Despite my having mentioned Adobe in a positive light, I am not advocating a move to Premiere. I have used many edit platforms over the years from flatbeds and uprights to CMX, Quantel, Sony, EMC, Avid and Apple. I believe in truly being platform agnostic and using the tool that’s right for the job. Perhaps Apple is counting on those who never have or never will use any other platform as an excuse for being lazy and putting their profits over our business and creative needs.
-
Gary, first I would like to thank you for your review of FCP X. It is vital that we move forward and embrace innovation no matter where it comes from and see FCP X in a positive light. I would like to take a moment and question your assertion that FCP X is not an upgrade given that FCS3 was removed from Apple’s inventory list on the exact same day as FCP X’s release. Along with the continuation of the venerable Final Cut name, something that branding gurus (Apple is indeed the king of branding) would frown on if it was in fact a different product, it seems to be a new version of the same product. I would also like to point out that, according to your statement that FCP X is not for the expert editor along with the discontinuation of FCS3, Apple no longer sells professional edit software. I have yet to try FCP X (you can be certain that I will) but this is a very disappointing development.
Cam Khoury
One Eyed Dog, LTD
oededit.com
248-613-8966 -
I think the new FCP X offers promise but I guess my broader point is that I understand both sides of the argument with respect to the disruptive that occur when our tools change. I’m not so sure that everyone who has a problem with consumer features creeping into the product is just being a Luddite. I’ve embraced every tool to come to market for the past 25 years and get excited about the improvements they had to offer. But for the sake of argument, one has to consider the time it takes to get to “expert-level” on any piece of software. Baptism-by-Fire is not the best way to run your business and, hence, stability rules in a commercial enterprise even when it means forsaking new features. Most folks wanted to see a solid product improved, not discontinued so that we could move to the next level, as good as that level may be. I’m not sure we all want to be forced into becoming Beta testers for a new platform just because we want to have more native formats or whatever other features that individual editors have been waiting years for.
Having said all that, we’ll all buy the new FCP and probably grow into it as we have with all of our past ‘new’ tools. However, I suspect that this one might tempt a few people to take a closer look at the Avid systems knowing that they have a far more conservative approach to product development and as businesses often do, base their decisions on that stability. Personally, I think it looks pretty cool and I can’t wait to get my hands on it. Viva la Choice!
Cam Khoury
One Eyed Dog, LTD
oededit.com
248-613-8966 -
Perhaps I’m adding my two-cents worth a bit late but I would like offer this commentary. I’ve read where a couple of people have compared this upcoming release to the maiden release of Avid in 1989. I was very much involved in shaking out that release and have very different memories of how that all went and find the comparisons way off the mark.
First, you have to remember that Avid was not replacing anything when they issued v1. It was a concept product and while there was a field of competitors (CMX 6000, EditDroid, or Montage) the Avid way of working and storing dailies on SCSI drives was a new concept. It was never meant to be high quality and it’s closest analogue might have been the Quantel Harry, itself a game-changing product. If you have ever cut on a flatbed, you probably praised the Avid because you never had to chase a trim again but the expectations for a rich feature set were not very high and film workprints were an eyesore to watch anyway. As such, you weren’t taking anything away that editors had come to rely on already. Also, because they mimicked a flatbed (and even allowed for Montage and Steenbeck-style controllers) they provided solutions for film editors and worked extremely hard to make sure ALL features that film cutters already had come to expect were in the Media Composer software. They really didn’t try to force creative styles into a new box but rather tried to do what editors were already doing in a digital fashion. The people most uncomfortable with the Avid at the time were video folks who didn’t understand why we needed a period of prep-time to digitize and sort (something film editors and their assistants were already used to) and the high quality video that video editors already saw in their suites. Also, if you needed to see a facial expression in better resolution you could simply pop in the source tape and ask MC to ‘Locate Frame’ so Avid had provided useful tools to anticipate people’s real-world concerns.
Contrast that with what Apple is doing and we get, “now change your style because we think we have a better way”. I understand the need for change and even a complete revamping of the interface but the software represents more than just a blunt instrument to bang out a video. We develop working styles by using these products over time and the transition to a new product is not a simple matter of shelling out money for the latest fad in software. This is not a word processor where the software can be drastically changed while not affecting our work. We have a far more personal attachment to our edit software and the comments on these boards reflect those attachments. As such, decisions to switch platforms are delicate matters that should not be taken lightly. Incidentally, you have to give Avid a lot credit on this one. They really enhanced their framework and even added FCP functionality to their timeline but left the choice to the editor to decide if that was the way they wanted to work. They could have easily said that the old way is dead so get used to it but instead they offered a way for those who wanted to continue working the old way the option to do so while adding new features for those who chose to move on.
A second point to make about this comparison that is extremely relevant here is that in Avid’s early days, when the software was in it’s infancy and quite buggy, we had direct lines to the Avid techs. We worked directly with Avid on any number of issues and never had to suffer through the 10 pages of tech support preamble before you could get real tech support. It was then that Avid was much more responsive to it’s installed user-base in a way that no company can match today. Also keep in mind that Avid controlled the hardware and software so they could troubleshoot your system from soup-to-nuts. If we have issues today we’re left to figure things out on our own. Thanks to the internet, at least we have each other! It would be very unusual to find editors who have a direct line to Apple that would allow them to troubleshoot anything or that would allow input about what a wider swath of editors think about their product. I doubt that for $300, any software company could do that even if they wanted to simply due to the margins required to support that model. There is a reason that Autodesk still charges a pretty stiff support fee on their high-end products.
Sorry to ramble on but I hope you’ll find my comments to be mildly relevant to this discussion.
Cam Khoury
One Eyed Dog, LTD
oededit.com
248-613-8966 -
Fair enough Craig but I think we have to consider the true nature of what Final Cut is really doing for us as professional editors. In and of itself, FC is just a basic editor and when compared side-by-side with Avid it’s feature set was weak. For instance, Avid provided (and continues to provide) animatte, excellent keying, tracking, exceptional motion effects, cloning, painting and so on all in a unified interface. FC offered none of these. The best FC could offer was a cheaper cost point especially when installed with third-party hardware such as Aja and BM. By introducing FC as a bundle in FC Studio Pro they could now go head to head with a mature product such as Avid. To tout FC as a a great edit system by itself is subjective and depends on the individual (for the record, I happen to like Final Cut) but it really doesn’t have the tool set to give it traction on complex editorial jobs. The days are gone when clients will accept a rough cut without those complex details already worked out – details that require a robust tool set. So you have to look at the development cycle for the entire FCP Studio as a basis for discussion because the editor by itself just won’t do. Based on that history, Apple has an abysmal record of updating their product. A notable item in this discussion is Quicktime which is the foundation of FC. Quicktime is perhaps the worst format for moving media around if you care about color management. They introduced Quicktime X which took away so much functionality while ignoring core issues that we rely on in a professional workflow. Do you know any professional editors who are using Quicktime X? If past is prologue, does the FC update history or QT improvement tell us anything about Apple’s future offerings?
Cam Khoury
One Eyed Dog, LTD
oededit.com
248-613-8966 -
I might be wrong but Apple took over two years to get FCP Studio 2 out and it’s been almost two years since FCP Studio 3 came out. In between those releases no major features were introduced. Bugs were squashed and some file format additions were added between major releases but that’s pretty much the extent of their updating history.
Cam Khoury
One Eyed Dog, LTD
oededit.com
248-613-8966 -
From what I’m hearing, this is actually an error designed into the system to discourage you from saving to any drive but the system drive. I’m not so sure I understand why Apple has created such a rigid structure that won’t even allow you to store a project to an attached Firewire drive. Perhaps FC should warn you about this as you save to an “unauthorized” drive. The whole thing seems so “SneakerNet-ish” (seems like the perfect thing for a competent programmer to work on being that computers do this sort of organizational tedium far better than humans do). Anyway, thanks for your insights.
cam