Chris Harlan
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Avid has now qualified the 13” Macbook Air.
https://avid.custkb.com/avid/app/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=362919
Jeremy
“What a trip. Of course, if I don’t want to buy multiple copies it will have to always have a dongle sticking out of it.
-
[Bill Davis] “Anyone who likes the program also likes Sushi a lot.
Anyone who doesn’t like the program likes Steak a lot.
“LOL. Well, you got me there. Of course, I’m very fond of tempura and teriyaki, so that moves me at least a little more to the middle.
-
[Andrew Richards] “I just figured once you left FCP for Pro Tools or Resolve, you wouldn’t be coming back for more edits,”
The problem with that thought is that, potentially, there are ALWAYS more edits.
-
[Tim Wilson] “I was just going to suggest reading the last couple of pages of posts. It’ll be like riding a time machine into the future!
“Well, the other option is for us to become One Infinite Loop.
-
[Walter Soyka] “I like Craig and Tim’s suggestion of “Industry Trends.” I’d love to see this level of interest and debate broaden significantly. I’ve learned a ton here.
“Ditto. I would very much like to widen this conversation beyond FCP X.
-
[Bill Davis] “Walter,
You’re surely not implying that the colorist should be given access to the EDIT decisions?
That doesn’t seem workable.
Under that idea, won’t sending the same project to 10 desks where each can potentially affect work on 5 areas within the project lead to 50 possible iterations?
Sounds like a bit of a logistical nightmare.
“Bill, I’m pretty certain that Walter isn’t suggesting such a thing without a tight control of access or privileges. My guess is that you are aware of that as well.
Or maybe I’m misunderstanding.
-
[Andrew Richards] “I don’t think Roles are an afterthought though, they were there in 10.0, just with no apparent use. There is a rhyme and reason to a metadata-centic organization, but they shipped that feature half-baked and the casual observer can be forgiven for their skepticism.
“That’s quite a statement. And a cheep shot. By that logic, there are tracks in FCP X too. Inside the code, there is a whole graveyard of ways FCP X didn’t go. Some of it may show up; a lot of it never will. It is just as likely–in fact, more likely from my perspective–that some of the development team realized, early on, the potentially serious pitfalls of the magnetic timeline and began track work-arounds long before the project debuted. That was deemed unnecessary by the powers that be, but got worked back in after the release outcry. You see a lot of order is this product. To my mind, that is a far more likely scenario. I believe waring concepts about the product’s identity took place all through development, and that those leaks from a few years ago–that I so easily dismissed at the time–were accurate. The casual observer does not need to be forgiven their skepticism–Apple is 100% responsible for that because of the fog they generated. What I’m not sure of, though, is that you should be forgiven your optimism.
-
[Andrew Richards] ” It is just so far, so good. “
Agreed.
[Andrew Richards] “As I look through the lens of the last shop I worked at, the next rev will deliver everything needed to tick all the requirements boxes for their workflow.”
You may very well be right about that. In fact, given the pressure caused by the outcry, I’d say you probably are right about that, but I’m sure you can understand the skepticism since none of these things were part of the initial release, and many of the step forward appear to people as workarounds or bandaids. I think Roles is an interesting idea that, despite its cleverness, screams “afterthought.”
Now, I freely admit that interesting and even eventually essential things are often born in this kind of chaos, which is the main reason I delight in this forum. So, I’m still following along, playing with the software here and there, and if anyone ever publishes and edl export, I might actually use it on a non-time sensitive bit of work to force myself to dig in deeper. I just find it troubling to try to second guess Apple’s intentions. My gut guess is that Apple is having the same problem.
-
[Walter Soyka] “In other words, one single project file and one single media pool that all applications could work with. It’d be nice if everyone could get along, wouldn’t it?
“We were so close too. That is one of the most maddening things for me about this whole experience.The growing interoperability over the last few years was spectacular. FCS forced Avid to move so much closer to open standards. XML was really beginning to function extremely well across many borders. It seemed as if we were on the edge of de facto standards. Then, bam, somebody didn’t want to play anymore.
-
[Andrew Richards] “Except I would argue that the one minor rev we have so far added significant critical functionality and it did so in a very short time (by software development standards). The long tail Townhill is referring to is software that can grow with Moore’s Law for a long time, not that they will drag their feet getting features added. They’ve already proven they can deliver big features on a short schedule. If the updates slow to a crawl after the next promised rev in “early 2012″, then I’ll eat crow. For now, they are doing just what they said they would.”
I fear I disagree. They were under inordinate pressure because of the PR backlash. IMHO, it’s not like they made these alterations based a normal time table. And look at the promises in the FAQ. Certainly, they managed to just deliver on the “this summer” promises, but failed on “in a few weeks…” promise. Also, there was a fairly strong implication that i/o was just around the corner. Now its next year. I’m saying this, not in judgement of the Apple people, but because I disagree with your argument that we can make behavioral assessments based on the last few months. Also, I think I have to disagree with your definition significant critical functionality. I just see a few steps forward, which are welcome ones, but small.