Chris Harlan
Forum Replies Created
-
[Oliver Peters] “Read my post before. Disk images are not necessary. It’s *a way* of doing it, but for organization, NOT “sharing”. Just last week I was bouncing sequences between two rooms based on common media. Didn’t even copy the Event. Different imports in each room (from the same media files). Then I just moved the project files from one room to the next and relinked. Pretty much like in Avid (without Unity) or in FCP 7.”
Well, that’s good to know. I definitely have to say things out loud a little more to ferret out where my misconceptions lie. I’m curious: Let’s say you are working on a sizzle reel with a very tight deadline. In FCP X, is it easy to take like four or five chunks of a long rough cut, do something like media manage them with handles (so that they don’t have to carry source files with them), hand them out to different editors, and then re-assemble them for completion? Is something like that as doable as it is in other NLEs?
[Oliver Peters] “Lightworks has actually demonstrated two editors actively working on parts of the SAME timeline at once!
“That’s pretty wild!
-
[Oliver Peters] “[Chris Harlan] “It just blows my mind that people are using disk images to share files and that other people are crowing over FCP X’s super slick media capabilities. Apple is the only company I can think of that people would do this for. Any other company would have been laughed off the planet.”
FCP X isn’t particularly better or worse than legacy as far as sharing. Collaborative workflows have never been a strong point for FCP. Due to its somewhat “open” nature, plenty of folks had developed really good, but highly customized, workflows. These allowed them to do collaboration/sharing in ways that worked for their shop. In most cases, those have never been true collaborative environments, but rather “project-duplication” and “project-moving” environments.
– Oliver
“Oh, I know. I was just being crabby. Actually, the “never mind” I left in a neighboring post was meant to replace what I’d said above. But, while we’re here– having to make “disk images”? Isn’t that a little much. I mean, instead of copying a folder and sharing a project file you have to fake a system out completely by making it think its using the same disk? I’m glad it works, but doesn’t that seem a wee bit crazy? FCP has never had the kind of capabilities that you get with Unity, but for the last five or six years, its been pretty easy to share work. A lot of people complain about Media Manager, but its worked very well for me. Its pretty easy to give somebody a chunk of timeline, let them work on it for awhile, and then re-intergrate. It really doesn’t take a lot of figuring or a high level of customization. Again, it ain’t ISIS, but still–we’re talking cut & paste.
-
Never mind. Sorry. Nothing happening here.
-
[Bob Zelin] “Edit your project and, when you’re done, use the
Finder to copy the Disk Image to the shared storage.
When another editor in another edit suite wants to
work on this project he/she simply copies the Disk
Image to a local drive, mounts it, and then opens FCP
X. “It just blows my mind that people are using disk images to share files and that other people are crowing over FCP X’s super slick media capabilities. Apple is the only company I can think of that people would do this for. Any other company would have been laughed off the planet.
-
[Alex Gerulaitis] “I am good Chris! (Still wishing Apple for once didn’t make a mess out of a good thing like they did by usurping Light Peak and making a costly, proprietary, poorly adopted version of it and calling it Thunderbolt. It’s clearly a high-end I/O interface – so a year-and-a-half later, why isn’t it available on Mac Pros yet? Now that I am done with my rant…)
How are you, Chris? 🙂
“Oh, I’m sharing the same rant. If you ever wander by the the FCP X or Not forum you will see me bazitching like crazy over FCP X and the coma that the MacPro is currently in. I’m still using FCS, but I’ve been in a 6 month migration to MC6 and Pr6. In some ways, I’m quite grateful that Apple shook things up so badly; other days, however, I still find myself swearing at them. If I remember correctly, it was my order that got you guys involved with Macs and FCP in the first place. And, here I am, these many years later contemplating my next workstation as a PC. Should I apologize?
Anyway, things are mostly well. Keeping busy, or when not, keeping busy trying to keep busy. My daughter, btw, has just turned 14, if you can believe it. Seems like not so long ago she was sitting there in her mom’s arms while we tried to figure out what was wrong with that Digisuite LE. Time, man; it just moves.
-
[Tim Wilson] “never use duct tape when the job calls for gaffers tape.”
Hee Hee
-
Alex! How’s it going?!
-
[Herb Sevush] “[Chris Harlan] ” a move to LTO for archiving ”
Having started the LTO process for myself, the one thing I will say is that there is very little standardization with this technology. I’m using BRU archiving software, which runs on Mac and Linux. This means if you have a PC system, or id you don’t have the right software, you can’t read my files. Until something like LTFS becomes the defacto standard, LTO5 will not replace videotape. A successful archiving standard requires that any tape can be played on any machine.
“Oh, yeah. I’m still a tape advocate. It was just tough to be one when you couldn’t get any.
-
[Herb Sevush] “So while it may be dead to you, the way Discreet/Autodesk is dead to me, it is not dead to everyone.”
Certainly not. But, the Japanese earthquake created such a lengthy shortage of HDcamSR that the conversation about tape’s inevitable demise and a move to LTO for archiving is happening quite a bit earlier than it might have.
-
[Craig Seeman] “[Chris Harlan] “But, Craig, I don’t think that’s what they are focusing on. To my mind, the crossgrade was an investment on their part to re-establish primacy at the upper end of the market.”
“Primacy” is an abstract concept that lost them money. The only reasons I can see for the crossgrade was to hook people into their expensive upgrades or to hope that if a facility moved lots of seats it would make Isis more attractive for integration.”
Well, that’s what makes horse races. Owning a market is not an abstract concept, and, given their limited choices, trying to do so seems to be a valid one. I’m also not sure how you can say that Avid lost money by conducting the crossgrade simply because they lost money during the period of the crossgrade. I’m curious how you are able to blame this specifically on the crossgrade. Is there some factoid floating around out there that demonstrates that the revenue from sales of non-discounted MC units was seriously diminished by flutter from the crossgrade? If so, I’d like to see it. My sense is that the crossgrade was largely attractive to a good number of people who, without the opportunity of a crossgrade, probably would not have considered Avid at all.
[Craig Seeman] “”Primacy” doesn’t mean much if they all jump to Adobe (or FCPX?) in two years if those products catch up by that time in their professional feature set. If Adobe and Apple aren’t competitive than the difference between $1000 crossgrade and a $2400 purchase isn’t going to be an issue since the facility in need wouldn’t really have a choice.”
I’m sorry. I don’t follow your logic here at all. Does “primacy”–what with the way you keep putting in quotes and all–have some sort of special or odd meaning to you? I’m mean, in the first sentence, you are basically saying “Being a market leader doesn’t mean much if your customers go to your competitors and they become the market leaders.” Duh, huh? And, the second sentence I just don’t understand what you are getting at, at all. Probably my thick head, but I just don’t see how any of this wraps together to demonstrate why a crossgrade program that was largely designed to bring people who might never have been users into the fold is a bonehead idea.
[Craig Seeman] “[Chris Harlan] “And, I think it was the smart move.”
A few financial analysts think not. “
Yeah, and there have been a few that thought it was an okay move, or at least an interesting move, but the reality is that most financial analysts don’t think of Avid at all. Small Potatoes. To my mind, Avid is a prime example of the many companies that had no business going public over the last two decades, but whose upper management got caught up in the mania that showering in money can produce in all but the best of us.