[Tim Wilson]

[Michael Gissing] “Details on keystrokes are not where speed is to be found but total workflows. My view that the operator experience and familiarity is more important than the software seems to be borne out by comments so far. “

In agreeing with you, I’m going to simultaneously invoke Scott Witthaus, Duane Allmann, Jeremy Garchow, and Walter Soyka.

==> Paraphrasing both Scott and Duane, the idea is that eventually, the “feature set” of Duane Allmann and his guitar were indistinguishable

==> Back in 2012 or so, when we were wondering if Apple was ever going to release a new workstation (and on another thread, we may be debating whether or not they yet have), Jeremy observed that it didn’t matter how much faster an HP Z820 was, because Jeremy didn’t want to use Windows, and he speculated would lose more time in the transition than he would ever recover from the increased speed.

Jeremy’s long, visible transition to X underscores that he’s neither a “stick with the old thing because it works” nor “go to the new thing because it’s APPLE and because it’s NEW” kinda guy….

==> The experience of people like Walter Soyka suggests that the transition of adding Windows was both far easier than expected AND fun…

ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL of which raises the question: is changing ANY of this worth the trouble?

Since the answer can obviously be yes for some people, the other question becomes, is it worth the trouble to FIGHT switching, because things really MIGHT be faster on the other side, the answer is equally obviously, YES, it CAN be worth the effort to fight the switch.

Especially as we’re honest about the fact that Apple never intended to make X work equally well with every workflow. There really are workflows that X was never intended to work with, meaning that TRYING to make X work is by DEFINITION “holding it the wrong way.”

So, in a way, letting X be X is both the fastest way to adopt X, and the fastest way to see that adopting is X for one’s own specific situation is somewhere in the neighborhood of impractical and impossible. If you were to truly understand X, you’d stop trying to use it!

Because in the end, these objective sounding words like “workflow” are part of the problem. “I LIKE IT” is a feature. LOL If you have a choice, choose something fun.

Which brings me back around to Glenn F, and how much FUN he’s having with X. I was trying to come up with some kind of elegant, journalistical-sounding way to end the interview….but I’m clearly not a journalist. LOL Not that I needed to remind any of you. LOL I like to talk, and that’s about it.

So I got to the end of Glenn’s very, very generous time with me, and after a pause, I gave up on playing journalist, and just started laughing, and said it had been a long time since I’d spoken to anybody so genuinely excited about something like this. He agreed. He’s loving it, and not at all in a “new toy” kind of way. In a creative possibilities kind of way, and for Glenn, it’s very much rooted in speed.

I think that’s pretty damn cool.

I’ll add that I do think that Glenn as a director talking about FCPX as an on-set tool for rough editing/vfx/sound is 1000000% legit, btw, because X’s chops for picture, fx, and sound turn into creative tools for HIM — and hey, a ton a y’all are directing too, so even though his story is in fact most applicable to feature-esque production, he’s also pushing the question of speed: the place that speed REALLY makes a difference on a movie is on the SET.

Meaning that in addition to asking WHAT is editing speed, we can also ask WHERE, WHEN, and FOR WHOM is editing speed, and learn that the answer with the biggest bang for time and money with FCPX is “for the director, on the set, a few hours before the rushes hit post.”

Right? LOL

[Tim Wilson]

[Joe Marler] “[Walter Soyka] “You can hit about 5 GB/s in a Z840 with an internal RAID of 16 SSDs…the fact remains that there is simply no way to get it on the nMP.
”
The nMP has three TB2 buses…..That would imply that around 3 GB/sec total should be achievable. I wonder has anyone ever tested that?”

If they haven’t, I’m sure they will.

There gets to be an interesting dynamic as we start to push against the limits though. Remember the 1999 “supercomputer” campaign? Apple had print ads touting that these computers were so powerful that Apple wasn’t allowed to export them to certain nations.

And this spot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSFeunkpng8

Although the tagline is priceless (“Pentium processors? They’re harmless”), this was exaggerated at best. The G4 wasn’t a weapon, and while the processing power exceeded some export thresholds at manufacture date, the ceiling had already been raised, leaving only about a 4-month window where this was even vaguely true a LITTLE….

…but really, can you imagine Apple saying that they make the most powerful computer?

Even on a dollar-for-dollar basis? I know that that’s part of what we’re debating here — does it do the stuff that **I** need it do — but the “not available at any price for a Mac” state of things is a real one.

Billions of colors is one that has recently come around. During the six years that Macs couldn’t do it, the general refrain was “Yeah, but I don’t need that,” and there have only been a handful of articles to treat Apple’s catching up as an actual innovation LOL but looking at things like HP Z workstations and RAM capacity far outstripping Macs, Apple bringing up the rear on Thunderbolt 3…it seems like one conclusion that we should at least debate drawing is that Apple is out of the “most powerful” game for good.

And maybe for the VERY good. Their goal isn’t to be the Tesla of computing. Apple is the Prius of computing, all the way. Anything else is a distraction that will ultimately not serve Apple’s users or shareholders well at all.

And I bet that the Apple car is going to prove my point. LOL I can’t wait! On-topic car analogies for everyone!

[Tim Wilson]

[Joe Marler] “Speed is still important but the various software features may be used differently than a scripted narrative because of the dissimilar production and post-production workflows. E.g, If Ken Burns edited a documentary today using FCPX, what would that workflow look like and how would it differ from Focus?”

I’ve got not one but TWO stories about low-budget indie documentaries underway, Joe.

I should mention that I couldn’t agree with you more about the actual APPLICABILITY of some of these feature film editing stories to non-feature film editing, eg, there isn’t any. LOL In practice, a story about how they edited Star Wars will be less *applicable* to ME than a story about how they did makeup on Star Wars, because I no longer edit movies, but I do still wear makeup. LOL

[Tim Wilson]

[Charlie Austin] “lol. I’m not sure the “X Community” whatever that is, all feel this way. :-)”

LOL That is in fact the motto of Creative COW. Pretty Far Down the List of High-End Users™

[Tim Wilson]

[Oliver Peters] “[Neil Goodman] “I want to hear from the actual editor(s) who cut Focus, the people actually working on a timeline and being creative. – no diss on AE’ing, its an essential part of the process.””

I’ll add that I recently had a loooong conversation with director Glenn Ficarra about how they evolved their use of X on their next feature, the upcoming Whisky Tango Foxtrot, that I hope to get posted this month.

(You may have seen previous references to the movie title as Fun House and The Taliban Shuffle, but in any case, here’s the IMDb listing.)

Rather than a specific workflow profile like Oliver’s piece, we were mostly talking about speed. (What’s that you say? SPEED.) The context for our conversation was their work on-set, where they were not just cutting, but roughing out VFX (shoutout to CoreMelt Track X in particular) and audio (what’s that you say? AUDIO).

Glenn’s feeling is that the speed (what’s that you say? SPEED) of FCPX enabled them to save big money on set, which is where the biggest savings often are. He actually started telling me that they’re going even further with their next film, with the bottom line for now being that they’re remaking their entire moviemaking process to take into account how much more they’re able to accomplish with X.

That sounds pretty creative to me. 🙂

To your point, Neill, I also spoke with First AE Kevin Bailey, who was personally roughing picture, VFX, AND audio (what’s that you say? AUDIO) on set, and he likewise was very moved by X’s speed.

So the takeaway from the Focus team was to push X even harder for their next movie, and harder still for the one after it — and loving it more.

btw, I really loved talking to Glenn. When I say he’s razor sharp, fast, and funny, keep in mind that he also wrote Bad Santa. (What? That was 12 years ago?) I mean, he’s written and directed lots of other stuff, plenty of it kind, generous (directed Crazy, Stupid, Love.), and even for kids (Angry Beavers, Wild Thornberrys), but duuuude, Bad Santa. I’ll get this posted as soon as I can, honest.

[Tim Wilson]

I have quite a few more from Simon that I’ll be posting as quickly as I can, so stay tuned!

And Simon, thanks from me, too! 🙂 Keep ’em coming!

Pretty please. 🙂

Tim Wilson
Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW

[Tim Wilson]

Thanks Kalle….although I’ve temporarily deactivated that thread until the poster updates it with a real name. I can’t believe that “Rogue Polygon” slipped through. LOL

[Tim Wilson]

[Simon Ubsdell] “The overweening presumption that this is somehow true for all types of editing is insufferable to me.”

THAT’s what we should name this forum. LOL

I’ll take the liberty of offering a crass American restatement of Simon’s more elegant composition.

It’s not Simon. It’s X.

Nobody at Apple thinks X is THE solution for every editor…do they? Which means that there exist insightful editors of good conscience and who look at X, in the full glory of its X-ness, and say, “This is not for me” …
…and a theoretically honest Apple would say, “You are correct. We did not design X for you.”

(“Unless of course you are willing to do things our way just because it’s how we want to do them. We weren’t thinking about you at all, one way or the other.” LOL )
Maybe I’m wrong about this. Maybe X has achieved Apple’s goal of being the best choice for every editor in every scenario. Anybody think that that’s the case?

Of course not.

Then the following is not under debate. It is a fact. There exist editors for whom X is not the best choice, by Apple’s explicit design. Apple could have made X for them, and chose not to.

Not that this is a criticism. I like X. The only reason it works at all is because Apple made choices about whose needs to meet, and whose not to. That’s the only reason ANYTHING works, from anyone.

To come at it another way, I think that the strengths of a thing and its weaknesses are IDENTICAL. Not related. IDENTICAL. I’m creative. I start a bunch of new projects every day, but I have a hard time finding the time to finish them, because I’ve already moved on to starting a bunch more stuff. IDENTICAL.

So in the real world that people actually live in, the BEST parts of X, the parts most fully approaching the perfection that Apple intended, will be EXACTLY the parts of X that PREVENT it from being useful for me, EVER.

Not because I don’t get X. Not because Apple doesn’t get ME. But because Apple has its priorities, and I have mine, and they’re not the same.

That’s why I have a problem with general statements in this context about “what is speed” or even “what is editing,” which is ultimately what I think Simon is getting at. What is EDITING, because in this context, what Apple prioritizes as “editing” has nothing to do with what Simon and his team prioritizes as “editing.”

(Speaking, a) rhetorically, as a fan of X myself, and b) taking liberties with Simon’s words that I trust that he’ll correct, of course. LOL)

That’s why I think specifics are so important. They’re all that’s true.

cI mean, how’s this for a general statement: the more general a statement is, the less true it can be. LOL But in this context, I absolutely believe it.

I especially appreciate Herb in an earlier post distinguishing between approaches for gazillions of pieces of unrelated, incompatible legacy media for a documentary series vs. unified production of metadata-laden, editing-optimized modern formats on a heavily-scripted narrative feature. There’s only a very small range of insight that one project would have to offer the other.

In practice, it might begin and end with, “You should consider using a better chair.” Perhaps followed by, “You should consider standing up.”

Otherwise, is there be a conclusion to draw about “editing” or “speed” from the fact that Gone Girl was edited with Premiere Pro? I think there is, and it’s worth talking about here.

But even before we begin, we can see the limits of that discussion if we imagine a conversation over a bowl of grass (mooo!) about how much better Focus and Gone Girl might have gone if each team had used the other software! LOL

Or not. LOL Each team, by every account, would have found the other software to create pointless obstacles in exchange for zero advantages.

For that matter, I’ll buy you a real pony if either team spent as much time talking about “editing speed” as it has taken you to read this far in this stupid post. It’s inconceivable to me that either team would have “gone” faster, or “edited” faster, using something than exactly what they chose.

And since I’m not editing features at all, I don’t find necessarily find much that that either of these folks (or Murch) have to say to be PERSUASIVE to ME…but that’s not what I want from stories like this. I want to hear SPECIFICS. Tell me a good story about your stuff, and I don’t care if it applies to me or not.

I still think that user stories from Fincher, Simon, Bill, Aindreas, Murch, the guys on Focus, Alan Bell using Media Composer for Mockingjay(s) (see A Tale of Two Mockingjays), et al aren’t just engaging, they’re IMPORTANT.

But only to the extent that they’re SPECIFIC. To the extent that they’re specific, they can also be useful. What’s NOT useful is trying to extend their examples further than they actually reach.

The ideal scenario for me (speaking strictly as someone who edited for 20+ years and still enjoys talking about it) is that people be as specific as possible about their own experiences, and let me be the one who works out its applicability to me.

(There’s also the matter of entertainment. Tell me a good story about your stuff, and I don’t need it to APPLY to me at all.)

Not that “you’re holding it wrong” isn’t a valid response from somebody else to me in the course of a conversation like this in the COW. (Although, historically speaking, “you’re holding it wrong” didn’t change for a single second that the design was in fact flawed, and subsequently changed.)

But if we’re going to acknowledge that Apple neither intended X to be Everybody’s Everything, nor accidentally achieved it, we have to acknowledge that there are potentially millions of people for whom the response, “It’s not for me” is EXACTLY the ONLY accurate, rational response to X.

Because they’re RIGHT. Apple DIDN’T design X for them. Apple designed X for somebody else.

And not to get too carried away with words like “rational,” or worse, “objective,” “quantifiable,” “benchmark” and the like. Hideous. Awful, awful things to base important decisions on, which is why so few people do.

Speed is speed, editing is editing, and “I don’t like it” can in fact mean “I understand X exactly as Apple intends me to understand it, and I have come to the same conclusion that was Apple’s starting point: Apple did not make X for me.”

And even if they did, me not liking it, or finding it the best choice for any one job, isn’t necessarily a result of my lack of understanding or appreciation of X. On the contrary, it could easily be because I see things exactly as they are.

[Tim Wilson]

[Herb Sevush] “Why don’t you go back and read the original post. I didn’t invent this notion, the original OP posted an article by a Mac website that called the nMP “a failure.” Here it is again …

https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/the-new-mac-pro-is-a-failure

I do hope that people are reading the article. It’s very specific, well-reasoned, well-documented.

Although, that said, I think you stick the landing on the conclusion in an earlier post, Herb:

[Herb Sevush] “Name another computer that’s actively being compared to it’s 6 year old EOl’d predecessor and it’s not clear cut which one a user should buy.”

It. Has. Never. Happened. Before. Ever.

Yet it’s happening with this computer regularly, at the author’s site, ours, and others.

And yes, there are millions of people who embrace this as the best computer Apple has ever released. That’s not news. That’s NORMAL. That’s how it SHOULD be.

But, really, other than the year Apple dropped the number of slots from 6 to 3 (1997 was it?), I can’t think of a single new model that has made so many people so upset.

Other than than FCPX and pulling the plug on the clone program, I can’t think of ANYTHING that Apple has done that has made as many people as upset as the “new” Mac Pro has.

The difference THAT time (halving the number of slots) is that there were so many obvious benefits to the new model that people bought in as quickly as it was feasible. Which admittedly wasn’t always feasible very quickly (Apple made it harder to use outboard chassis with that new model)…but overall, barely a ripple in the industry.

The difference THIS time is that, YEARS later, the new model has failed to universally make its case for unambiguous superiority. Can we at least agree on that much?

It also has the unique distinction of actually chasing career-long Mac advocates from the platform.

The biggest irony of all is that, back a few years ago when we were wondering if Apple was ever going to update the Mac Pro — remember? Tim Cook publicly said that they were working on something, and we were gonna love it. The first time in company history that I can recall Apple acknowledging that ANY customers exist, much less PRO customers….and THIS is what we got.

So I was a little surprised to see no comment at all when Tim Cook said that he honestly doesn’t understand why anyone would buy a computer when they could buy an iPad Pro instead.

Money quote: “No, really. Why would you?”

Yes yes, this was somewhat rhetorical…and amusingly ironic in light of him saying that MSFT was clueless for offering an iPad Pro a couple of years before Apple did. LOL

We knew then that he was just funnin’ us of course. Classic Apple FUD Translation Tip: that thing that Apple is pissing on today? It’ll be their next major product release.

And sure, one reason not to bring Tim’s quote up is because Apple is always going to give us another reason to wonder whether they care about keeping “people like me” as customers…because they don’t….

…but it’s irrelevant, because Apple will still find ways to delight people who have the good fortune to have the needs that Apple feels like meeting for its OWN purposes.

[Tim Wilson]

[Bret Williams] “Takes me back to that brief period where we were editing anamorphic SD for DVD, but everyone had started shooting HD.”

Or that very long period where people shot on film for delivery to SD broadcast and VHS.

The notion of identical acquisition and distribution formats is an incredibly brief aberration in the history of video and film production. They’ve historically had little to do with each other, and in most contexts, they still do.

I promise you there was never a conversation that went, “Why are we shooting Gilligan’s Island on film? It’s not like people have movie projectors at home.”

Most people do what most people have always done: choose the production format that offers the most advantages for production, and treat distribution as a separate issue.

You know the old saying: fix it in telecine. LOL

You’re absolutely right to bring up web video in this context, Bret. From the beginning, it showed even more starkly than DVD the advantages of high resolution input for higher quality compression.

For that matter, devices show even more starkly than tvs the advantage of density. We can argue all day whether or not people can tell the distance between HD and 4K on their TVs, but it’s actually pretty striking on a phone or tablet.

And now that the economic and workflow considerations of 4K+ are just that — something to consider, rather than some massive obstacle — decoupling is happening more and more broadly.